Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Final Rule, 56558-56563 [2012-22571]
Download as PDF
56558
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS
State
effective
date
Missouri citation
Title
*
10–2.040 ........................
*
*
*
Maximum Allowable Emission of Particulate Matter from Fuel Burning Equipment Used for Indirect Heating.
9/4/84
*
*
1/24/85, 50 FR 3337 .....
Rescinded.
*
10–3.060 ........................
*
*
*
Maximum Allowable Emission of Particulate Matter from Fuel Burning Equipment Used for Indirect Heating.
11/30/02
*
*
3/18/03, 68 FR 12831 ...
Rescinded.
*
10–4.040 ........................
*
*
*
Maximum Allowable Emission of Particulate Matter from Fuel Burning Equipment Used for Indirect Heating.
11/30/02
*
*
3/18/03, 68 FR 12831 ...
Rescinded.
*
10–5.030 ........................
*
*
*
Maximum Allowable Emission of Particulate Matter from Fuel Burning Equipment Used for Indirect Heating.
9/4/84
*
*
1/24/85, 50 FR 3337 .....
Rescinded.
*
10–6.405 ........................
*
*
*
Restriction of Particulate Matter Emissions From
Fuel Burning Equipment Used for Indirect
Heating.
10/30/11
*
*
9/13/12 [insert Federal
Register page number where the document begins].
*
Replaces 10–2.040, 10–
3.060, 10–4.040, and
10–5.030
*
*
*
*
EPA approval date
*
40 CFR Part 261
exclusion for 3,150 cubic yards per year
of the F006 wastewater treatment
sludge.
Accordingly, this final rule excludes
the petitioned waste from the
requirements of hazardous waste
regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
[EPA–R01–RCRA–2012–0447; FRL–9727–2]
DATES:
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2012–22471 Filed 9–12–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Rule
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is granting the petition
submitted by International Business
Machines Corporation (IBM) to exclude
or ‘‘delist’’ a certain wastewater
treatment sludge generated by its facility
in Essex Junction, Vermont from the
lists of hazardous wastes. This final rule
responds to a petition submitted by IBM
to delist F006 waste. The F006 waste is
sludge generated from IBM’s Industrial
Waste Treatment Plant (IWTP).
After careful analysis and use of the
Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS), EPA has concluded the
petitioned waste is not hazardous waste.
The F006 exclusion is a conditional
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Sep 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R01–RCRA–2012–0447. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
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, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Region 1 Library, 5 Post Office
Square, 1st floor, Boston, MA 02109–
3912; by appointment only; tel: (617)
918–1990. 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.
ADDRESSES:
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
Effective Date: This final rule is
effective on September 13, 2012.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
Explanation
*
*
*
*
*
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sharon Leitch, RCRA Waste
Management and UST Section, Office of
Site Remediation and Restoration, (Mail
Code: OSRR07–01), EPA Region 1, 5
Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston,
MA 02109–3912; telephone number:
(617) 918–1647; fax number (617) 918–
0647; email address:
leitch.sharon@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA finalizing?
B. Why is EPA approving this action?
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
D. How will IBM manage the waste, when
delisted?
E. When is the final delisting exclusion
effective?
F. How does this final rule affect states?
II. Background
A. What is a delisting 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 IBM petition EPA to
delist?
B. How much waste did IBM propose to
delist?
C. How did IBM sample and analyze the
waste data in this petition?
IV. Public Comments Received on the
Proposed Exclusions
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
A. Who submitted comments on the
proposed rules?
B. What was the comment and what was
EPA’s response?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
including a description of the waste and
analytical data from the Essex Junction,
Vermont facility.
I. Overview Information
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
A. What action is EPA finalizing?
After evaluating the petition for IBM,
EPA proposed, on July 16, 2012 (77 FR
41720), to exclude the waste from the
lists of hazardous waste under § 261.31.
EPA is finalizing the decision to grant
IBM’s delisting petition to have its F006
wastewater treatment sludge excluded,
or delisted, from the definition of a
hazardous waste, once it is disposed in
a Subtitle D landfill.
B. Why is EPA approving this action?
IBM’s petition requests a delisting
from the F006 waste listing under 40
CFR 260.20 and 260.22. IBM does not
believe that the petitioned waste meets
the criteria for which EPA listed it. IBM
also believes no additional constituents
or factors could cause the waste to be
hazardous. EPA’s review of this petition
included consideration of the original
listing criteria, and the additional
factors required by the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA). See Section 3001(f) of RCRA,
42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22
(d)(1)–(4) (hereinafter all sectional
references are to 40 CFR unless
otherwise indicated). In making the
final delisting determination, EPA
evaluated the petitioned waste against
the listing criteria and factors cited in
§ 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this
review, EPA agrees with the petitioner
that the waste is nonhazardous with
respect to the original listing criteria. (If
EPA had found, based on this review,
that the waste remained hazardous
based on the factors for which the waste
was originally listed, EPA would have
proposed to deny the petition). EPA
evaluated the waste with respect to
other factors or criteria to assess
whether there is a reasonable basis to
believe that such additional factors
could cause the wastes to be hazardous.
EPA considered whether the waste is
acutely toxic, the concentrations of the
constituents in the waste, their tendency
to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their
persistence in the environment once
released from the waste, plausible and
specific types of management of the
petitioned waste, the quantities of waste
generated, and waste variability. EPA
believes that the petitioned waste does
not meet the listing criteria and thus
should not be a listed waste. EPA’s final
decision to delist the waste from IBM’s
facility is based on the information
submitted in support of this rule,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Sep 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
This exclusion applies to the waste
described in IBM’s petition only if the
requirements described in 40 CFR part
261, Appendix IX, Table 1 and the
conditions contained herein are
satisfied.
D. How will IBM manage the waste,
when delisted?
The delisted F006 wastewater
treatment sludge will be disposed of in
a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted,
licensed or otherwise authorized by a
state to manage industrial waste.
E. When is the final delisting exclusion
effective?
This rule is effective September 13,
2012. The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 amended Section
3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6930(b)(1),
allow rules to become effective in less
than six months after the rule is
published when the regulated
community does not need the six-month
period to come into compliance. That is
the case here because this rule reduces,
rather than increases, the existing
requirements for persons generating
hazardous waste. This reduction in
existing requirements also provides a
basis for making this rule effective
immediately, upon publication, under
the Administrative Procedure Act,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
F. How does this final rule affect states?
EPA is issuing this exclusion under
the federal RCRA delisting program.
Thus, upon the exclusion being
finalized, the wastes covered will be
removed from Subtitle C control under
the federal RCRA program. This will
mean, first, that the wastes will be
delisted in any State or territory where
the EPA is directly administering the
RCRA program (e.g., Iowa, Indian
Country). However, whether the wastes
will be delisted in States which have
been authorized to administer the RCRA
program will vary depending upon the
authorization status of the States and
the particular requirements regarding
delisted wastes in the various States.
While Vermont has been authorized
to generally administer the federal
RCRA program, it has not sought or
obtained authorization to delist federal
listed wastes. See 58 FR 26243 (May 3,
1993). Instead, the Vermont Hazardous
Waste Regulation section 7–217(c)
specifies that ‘‘the Administrator of EPA
shall retain the authority to exclude
such wastes.’’ By letter dated April 12,
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
56559
2012, the Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation has
confirmed that Vermont interprets this
regulation to mean that upon the EPA
making a delisting determination
(regarding a federally regulated waste),
the delisting determination takes effect
within that State. Thus, this delisting
determination will apply within
Vermont with no further action required
by the State.
Like Vermont, some other generally
authorized States have not received
authorization for delisting. Thus, the
EPA makes delisting determinations for
such States. However, RCRA allows
states to impose their own regulatory
requirements that are more stringent
than EPA’s, under § 3009 of RCRA.
These more stringent requirements may
include a provision that prohibits a
federally issued exclusion from taking
effect in the state, or that requires a
State concurrence before the federal
exclusion takes effect, or that allows the
State to add conditions to any federal
exclusion. We urge the petitioner to
contact the state regulatory authority in
each State to or through which it may
wish to ship its wastes to establish the
status of its wastes under the state’s
laws.
EPA has also authorized some states
to administer a delisting program in
place of the federal program, that is, to
make state delisting decisions. In such
states, the state delisting requirements
operate in lieu of the federal delisting
requirements. Therefore, this exclusion
does not apply in those authorized
states unless the state makes the rule
part of its authorized program. If IBM
transports the federally excluded waste
to or manages the waste in any state
with delisting authorization, IBM must
obtain a delisting authorization from
that state before it can manage the waste
as non-hazardous in that state.
II. Background
A. What is a delisting petition?
A delisting petition is a request from
a generator to EPA or to an authorized
state to exclude or delist, from the
RCRA list of hazardous wastes, waste
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
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
56560
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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.
IV. Public Comments Received on the
Proposed Exclusion
C. What information must the generator
supply?
B. What was the comment and what was
EPA’s response?
Comment: Based on the condition that
the resultant sludge is a combination of
three (3) independent waste streams (i.e.
it appears each waste stream is being
diluted by two(2) other waste streams)
it would be prudent to require IBM to
submit to EPA, or the landfill, monthly
waste rates from each of the three (3)
independent waste streams to ensure
the contribution ratios are not
dramatically changing.
The removal of one waste process
could potentially increase the hazardous
components by 50% from the other 2
waste streams. If volume of sludge waste
is a component in EPA’s calculations
related to overall impact, then the
increase, or reduction of a waste stream
could impact the results.
Response: EPA believes that the
requirements found in Conditions 4, 5
and 6 of the final exclusion adequately
address any changes in operations or
processes at the facility that could have
an impact on the composition of the
delisted sludge.
Petitioners must provide sufficient
information to EPA to allow EPA to
determine that the waste to be excluded
does not meet any of the criteria under
which the waste was listed as a
hazardous waste. In addition, the
Administrator must determine, where
he/she has a reasonable basis to believe
that factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which
the waste was listed could cause the
waste to be a hazardous waste and that
such factors do not warrant retaining the
waste as a hazardous waste.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What waste did IBM petition EPA to
delist?
IBM petitioned EPA on July 11, 2008,
to exclude from the lists of hazardous
waste contained in §§ 261.31 and
261.32, F006 wastewater treatment
sludge, generated from its facility in
Essex Junction, Vermont.
B. How much waste did IBM propose to
delist?
IBM requested that EPA grant an
exclusion for 3,150 cubic yards per year
of F006 wastewater treatment sludge.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
C. How did IBM sample and analyze the
waste data in this petition?
To support its petition, IBM
submitted: (1) Facility information on
production processes and waste
generation processes; (2) Historical
sampling data of the IWTP sludge; (3)
Analytical results from four samples for
total concentrations for volatiles (SW–
846 Method 8260B), semi volatiles (SW–
846 Method 8270C) and metals (SW–
846 Method 6010B except for mercury—
SW–846 Method 7471A and selenium—
SW–846 Method 7010), for compounds
of concern (COCs); and (4) Analytical
results from four samples for Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) extract values for volatiles (SW–
846 Method 8260B), semi volatiles (SW–
846 Method 8270C) and metals (SW–
846 Method 6010B except for mercury—
SW–846 Method 7470 and selenium—
SM 3113B) for COCs.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Sep 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
A. Who submitted comments on the
proposed rule?
EPA received one email comment
from a consultant regarding the petition.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is
not of general applicability and
therefore is not a regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This
rule does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it
applies to a particular facility only.
Because this rule is of particular
applicability relating to a particular
facility, it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or
to Sections 202, 204, and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (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
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 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
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not
required to submit a rule report
regarding today’s action under Section
801 because this is a rule of particular
applicability. 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
56561
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
believes 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.
Dated: August 22, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
■
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, 6924(y) and 6938.
Environmental protection, Hazardous
waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX to Part
261 add the following waste stream in
alphabetical order by facility to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f).
Appendix IX to Part 261—Waste
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22
TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
Address
Waste description
*
IBM Corporation .....
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Facility
*
Essex Junction, VT
*
*
*
*
*
Wastewater Treatment Sludge (Hazardous Waste No. F006) generated at a maximum annual rate
of 3,150 cubic yards per calendar year and disposed of in a Subtitle D Landfill which is licensed,
permitted, or otherwise authorized by a state to accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge.
IBM must implement a testing program that meets the following conditions for the exclusion to be
valid:
1. Delisting Levels: (A) All leachable concentrations for the following constituents must not exceed
the following levels (mg/L for TCLP): Arsenic—5.0; Barium—100.0; Cadmium—1.0; Chromium—
5.0; Lead—5.0; Mercury—0.2; and, Nickel—32.4.
2. Waste Handling and Holding: (A) IBM must manage as hazardous all WWTP sludge generated
until it has completed initial verification testing described in paragraph (3)(A) and valid analyses
show that paragraph (1) is satisfied and written 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) for two consecutive quarterly sampling events are non-hazardous.
After approval is received from EPA, IBM can manage and dispose of the non-hazardous WWTP
sludge according to all applicable solid waste regulations.
(C) Not withstanding having received the initial approval from EPA, if constituent levels in a later
sample exceed any of the Delisting Levels set in paragraph (1), from that point forward, IBM must
treat all the waste covered by this exclusion as hazardous until it is demonstrated that the waste
again meets the levels in paragraph (1). IBM must manage and dispose of the waste generated
under Subtitle C of RCRA from the time that it becomes aware of any exceedance.
3. Verification Testing Requirements: IBM must perform sample collection and analyses in accordance with the approved Quality Assurance Project Plan dated January 27, 2011. All samples shall
be representative composite samples according to appropriate methods. As applicable to the
method-defined parameters of concern, analyses requiring the use of SW–846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11 must be used without substitution. As applicable, the
SW–846 methods might include Methods 0010, 0011, 0020, 0023A, 0030, 0031, 0040, 0050,
0051, 0060, 0061, 1010A, 1020B,1110A, 1310B, 1311, 1312, 1320, 1330A, 9010C, 9012B,
9040C, 9045D, 9060A, 9070A (uses EPA Method 1664, Rev. A), 9071B, and 9095B. Methods
must meet Performance Based Measurement System Criteria in which the Data Quality Objectives are to demonstrate that samples of the IBM sludge are representative for all constituents
listed in paragraph (1). To verify that the waste does not exceed the specified delisting concentrations, for one year after the final exclusion is granted, IBM must perform quarterly analytical testing by sampling and analyzing the WWTP sludge as follows:
(A) Quarterly Testing: (i) Collect two representative composite samples of the WWTP sludge at
quarterly intervals after EPA grants the final exclusion. The first composite samples must be
taken within 30 days after EPA grants the final approval. The second set of samples must be
taken at least 30 days after the first set.
(ii) Analyze the samples for all constituents listed in paragraph (1). Any waste regarding which a
composite sample is taken that exceeds the delisting levels listed in paragraph (1) for the sludge
must be disposed as hazardous waste in accordance with the applicable hazardous waste requirements from the time that IBM becomes aware of any exceedance.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Sep 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
56562
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Facility
Address
Waste description
(iii) Within thirty (30) days after taking each quarterly sample, IBM will report its analytical test data
to EPA. If levels of constituents measured in the samples of the sludge do not exceed the levels
set forth in paragraph (1) of this exclusion for two consecutive quarters, and EPA concurs with
those findings, IBM can manage and dispose the non-hazardous sludge according to all applicable solid waste regulations.
(B) Annual Testing: (i) If IBM completes the quarterly testing specified in paragraph (3) above and
no sample contains a constituent at a level which exceeds the limits set forth in paragraph (1),
IBM may begin annual testing as follows: IBM must test two representative composite samples of
the wastewater treatment sludge (following the same protocols as specified for quarterly sampling, above) for all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at least once per calendar year.
(ii) The samples for the annual testing taken for the second and subsequent annual testing events
shall be taken within the same calendar month as the first annual sample taken.
(iii) IBM shall submit an annual testing report to EPA with its annual test results, within thirty (30)
days after taking each annual sample. The annual testing report also shall include the total
amount of waste in cubic yards disposed during the calendar year.
4. Changes in Operating Conditions: If IBM significantly changes the manufacturing or treatment
process described in the petition, or the chemicals used in the manufacturing or treatment process, it must notify the EPA in writing and may no longer handle the wastes generated from the
new process as non-hazardous unless and until the wastes are shown to meet the delisting levels
set in paragraph (1), IBM demonstrates that no new hazardous constituents listed in appendix VIII
of part 261 have been introduced, and IBM has received written approval from EPA to manage
the wastes from the new process under this exclusion. While the EPA may provide written approval of certain changes, if there are changes that the EPA determines are highly significant, the
EPA may instead require IBM to file a new delisting petition.
5. Data Submittals and Recordkeeping: IBM must submit the information described below. If IBM
fails to submit the required data within the specified time or maintain the required records on-site
for the specified time, EPA, at its discretion, will consider this sufficient basis to reopen the exclusion as described in paragraph (6). IBM must:
(A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph (3) to the Chief, RCRA Waste Management & UST
Section, U.S. EPA Region 1, (OSRR07–1), 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109–
3912, within the time specified. All supporting data can be submitted on CD–ROM or some comparable electronic media;
(B) Compile, summarize, and maintain on site for a minimum of five years and make available for
inspection records of operating conditions, including monthly and annual volumes of WWTP
sludge generated, analytical data, including quality control information, and copies of the notification(s) required in paragraph (7);
(C) Submit with all data a signed copy of the certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).
6. Reopener Language—(A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, IBM possesses or is
otherwise made aware of any environmental data (including but not limited to leachate data or
groundwater monitoring data) or any other relevant data to the delisted waste indicating that any
constituent is at a concentration in the leachate higher than the specified delisting concentration,
then IBM must report such data, in writing, to the Regional Administrator and to the Vermont
Agency of Natural Resources Secretary 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 IBM 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 IBM with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed Agency action is not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. IBM shall have 30 days from the date of the Regional Administrator’s notice to present the
information.
(D) If after 30 days IBM 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.
7. Notification Requirements: IBM must do the following before transporting the delisted waste:
(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 the one-time written notification if it ships the delisted waste to a different disposal facility. Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting petition and a possible revocation of the decision.
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
17:08 Sep 12, 2012
*
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
*
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
*
13SER1
*
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations
at 50 CFR part 622.
[FR Doc. 2012–22571 Filed 9–12–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 100812345–2142–03]
RIN 0648–XC229
Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South
Atlantic; Reopening of the 2012
Commercial Sector for Yellowtail
Snapper in the South Atlantic
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; reopening.
AGENCY:
NMFS reopens the 2012
commercial sector for yellowtail
snapper in the South Atlantic exclusive
economic zone (EEZ). NMFS previously
determined the commercial ACL for
yellowtail snapper would be reached by
September 11, 2012, and closed the
commercial sector for yellowtail
snapper in the South Atlantic EEZ at
12:01 a.m. on September 11, 2012.
Updated landings estimates indicate the
ACL will not be reached by that date.
Therefore, NMFS is reopening the
commercial sector for yellowtail
snapper. The purpose of this action is to
allow the commercial sector to
maximize harvest benefits and at the
same time protect the yellowtail
snapper resource.
DATES: The reopening is effective 12:02
a.m., local time, September 11, 2012,
through December 31, 2012, the end of
the fishing season, unless the ACL is
reached before that date, at which time
the Assistant Administrator may file a
notification to that effect with the Office
of the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Catherine Hayslip, telephone: 727–824–
5305, or email:
Catherine.Hayslip@noaa.gov.
SUMMARY:
The
snapper-grouper fishery of the South
Atlantic includes yellowtail snapper
and is managed under the Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) for the
Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South
Atlantic Region. The FMP was prepared
by the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (Council) and is
implemented under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Sep 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
Background
The 2007 reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act implemented
new requirements that established ACLs
and AMs to end overfishing and prevent
overfishing from occurring. AMs are
management controls to prevent ACLs
from being exceeded, and to correct or
mitigate overages of the ACL if they
occur.
The Comprehensive ACL Amendment
to the Snapper-Grouper FMP, the
Golden Crab Fishery of the South
Atlantic Region FMP, the Dolphin and
Wahoo Fishery off the Atlantic States
FMP, and the Pelagic Sargassum Habitat
of the South Atlantic Region FMP
published March 16, 2010 (77 FR
15916). In part, the final rule for the
Comprehensive ACL Amendment
specified ACLs and AMs for species in
the Snapper-Grouper FMP that are not
undergoing overfishing, including
yellowtail snapper. Implementation of
ACLs and AMs for yellowtail snapper is
intended to prevent overfishing from
occurring in the future, while
maintaining catch levels consistent with
achieving optimum yield for the
resource.
The AM at § 622.49(b)(14)(i) requires
NMFS to close the commercial sector for
yellowtail snapper for the remainder of
the fishing year when the ACL is
reached, or is projected to be reached,
by filing a notification to that effect with
the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS
projected the commercial ACL for
yellowtail snapper of 1,142,589 lb
(518,270 kg), round weight, would be
reached on or before September 11,
2012, and closed the commercial sector
for yellowtail snapper on that date (77
FR 53776, September 4, 2012). However,
based on updated landings estimates,
NMFS has determined that only 75
percent of the available commercial
ACL will be landed by September 11,
2012. Therefore, NMFS will reopen the
commercial sector to allow the
remainder of the ACL to be harvested.
Under the reopening procedures
located at § 622.43(c), when a sector has
been closed based on a projection of
when the ACL specified in § 622.49 has
been reached and subsequent data
indicate that the ACL was not reached,
the Assistant Administrator may file a
notification to that effect with the Office
of the Federal Register. Such
notification may reopen the sector to
provide an opportunity for the ACL to
be harvested. Accordingly, NMFS is
reopening the commercial sector for
yellowtail snapper in the South Atlantic
EEZ from 12:02 a.m., local time,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
56563
September 11, 2012, through December
31, 2012, the end of the fishing year,
unless the ACL is reached before that
date. If the ACL is reached before that
date, the Assistant Administrator may
file a notification to that effect with the
Office of the Federal Register.
Classification
The Regional Administrator,
Southeast Region, NMFS, has
determined this temporary rule is
necessary for the conservation and
management of South Atlantic
yellowtail snapper and is consistent
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and
other applicable laws.
This action is taken under § 622.43(c)
and is exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the
procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the temporary rule is issued
without opportunity for prior notice and
comment.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there
is good cause to waive the requirements
to provide prior notice and the
opportunity for public comment on this
temporary rule. Such procedures are
unnecessary and contrary to the public
interest because the commercial ACL for
yellowtail snapper established in the
Comprehensive ACL Amendment and
located at § 622.49(b)(14)(i)(A) and the
reopening procedures located at
§ 622.43(c) have already been subject to
notice and comment and all that
remains is to notify the public that
additional harvest is available under the
established ACL and, therefore, the
commercial sector for yellowtail
snapper will reopen.
Additionally, there is a need to
immediately notify the public of the
reopening of the commercial sector for
yellowtail snapper because the closure
is set for September 11, 2012, and this
reopening will allow fishers to continue
their fishing practices with minimal
disruption to business practices.
Therefore, this temporary rule is
intended to minimize economic harm to
fishermen while still protecting the
yellowtail snapper resource.
For the aforementioned reasons, the
AA also finds good cause to waive the
30-day delay in the effectiveness of this
action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: September 10, 2012.
Lindsay Fullenkamp,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–22586 Filed 9–10–12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56558-56563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22571]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R01-RCRA-2012-0447; FRL-9727-2]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting the
petition submitted by International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)
to exclude or ``delist'' a certain wastewater treatment sludge
generated by its facility in Essex Junction, Vermont from the lists of
hazardous wastes. This final rule responds to a petition submitted by
IBM to delist F006 waste. The F006 waste is sludge generated from IBM's
Industrial Waste Treatment Plant (IWTP).
After careful analysis and use of the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS), EPA has concluded the petitioned waste is not
hazardous waste. The F006 exclusion is a conditional exclusion for
3,150 cubic yards per year of the F006 wastewater treatment sludge.
Accordingly, this final rule excludes the petitioned waste from the
requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on September 13,
2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R01-RCRA-2012-0447. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. 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, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Region 1 Library, 5 Post
Office Square, 1st floor, Boston, MA 02109-3912; by appointment only;
tel: (617) 918-1990. 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: Sharon Leitch, RCRA Waste Management
and UST Section, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration, (Mail
Code: OSRR07-01), EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100,
Boston, MA 02109-3912; telephone number: (617) 918-1647; fax number
(617) 918-0647; email address: leitch.sharon@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA finalizing?
B. Why is EPA approving this action?
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
D. How will IBM manage the waste, when delisted?
E. When is the final delisting exclusion effective?
F. How does this final rule affect states?
II. Background
A. What is a delisting 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 IBM petition EPA to delist?
B. How much waste did IBM propose to delist?
C. How did IBM sample and analyze the waste data in this
petition?
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusions
[[Page 56559]]
A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rules?
B. What was the comment and what was EPA's response?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA finalizing?
After evaluating the petition for IBM, EPA proposed, on July 16,
2012 (77 FR 41720), to exclude the waste from the lists of hazardous
waste under Sec. 261.31. EPA is finalizing the decision to grant IBM's
delisting petition to have its F006 wastewater treatment sludge
excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a hazardous waste, once
it is disposed in a Subtitle D landfill.
B. Why is EPA approving this action?
IBM's petition requests a delisting from the F006 waste listing
under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. IBM does not believe that the
petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA listed it. IBM also
believes no additional constituents or factors could cause the waste to
be hazardous. EPA's review of this petition included consideration of
the original listing criteria, and the additional factors required by
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See Section
3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)-(4)
(hereinafter all sectional references are to 40 CFR unless otherwise
indicated). In making the final delisting determination, EPA evaluated
the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in
Sec. 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, EPA agrees with
the petitioner that the waste is nonhazardous with respect to the
original listing criteria. (If EPA had found, based on this review,
that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for which the
waste was originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny the
petition). EPA evaluated the waste with respect to other factors or
criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that
such additional factors could cause the wastes to be hazardous. EPA
considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the concentrations of
the constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to
bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from
the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned
waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste variability. EPA
believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the listing criteria
and thus should not be a listed waste. EPA's final decision to delist
the waste from IBM's facility is based on the information submitted in
support of this rule, including a description of the waste and
analytical data from the Essex Junction, Vermont facility.
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
This exclusion applies to the waste described in IBM's petition
only if the requirements described in 40 CFR part 261, Appendix IX,
Table 1 and the conditions contained herein are satisfied.
D. How will IBM manage the waste, when delisted?
The delisted F006 wastewater treatment sludge will be disposed of
in a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed or otherwise
authorized by a state to manage industrial waste.
E. When is the final delisting exclusion effective?
This rule is effective September 13, 2012. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended Section 3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6930(b)(1), allow rules to become effective in less than six months
after the rule is published when the regulated community does not need
the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the case here
because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the existing
requirements for persons generating hazardous waste. This reduction in
existing requirements also provides a basis for making this rule
effective immediately, upon publication, under the Administrative
Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
F. How does this final rule affect states?
EPA is issuing this exclusion under the federal RCRA delisting
program. Thus, upon the exclusion being finalized, the wastes covered
will be removed from Subtitle C control under the federal RCRA program.
This will mean, first, that the wastes will be delisted in any State or
territory where the EPA is directly administering the RCRA program
(e.g., Iowa, Indian Country). However, whether the wastes will be
delisted in States which have been authorized to administer the RCRA
program will vary depending upon the authorization status of the States
and the particular requirements regarding delisted wastes in the
various States.
While Vermont has been authorized to generally administer the
federal RCRA program, it has not sought or obtained authorization to
delist federal listed wastes. See 58 FR 26243 (May 3, 1993). Instead,
the Vermont Hazardous Waste Regulation section 7-217(c) specifies that
``the Administrator of EPA shall retain the authority to exclude such
wastes.'' By letter dated April 12, 2012, the Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation has confirmed that Vermont interprets this
regulation to mean that upon the EPA making a delisting determination
(regarding a federally regulated waste), the delisting determination
takes effect within that State. Thus, this delisting determination will
apply within Vermont with no further action required by the State.
Like Vermont, some other generally authorized States have not
received authorization for delisting. Thus, the EPA makes delisting
determinations for such States. However, RCRA allows states to impose
their own regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's,
under Sec. 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include
a provision that prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking
effect in the state, or that requires a State concurrence before the
federal exclusion takes effect, or that allows the State to add
conditions to any federal exclusion. We urge the petitioner to contact
the state regulatory authority in each State to or through which it may
wish to ship its wastes to establish the status of its wastes under the
state's laws.
EPA has also authorized some states to administer a delisting
program in place of the federal program, that is, to make state
delisting decisions. In such states, the state delisting requirements
operate in lieu of the federal delisting requirements. Therefore, this
exclusion does not apply in those authorized states unless the state
makes the rule part of its authorized program. If IBM transports the
federally excluded waste to or manages the waste in any state with
delisting authorization, IBM must obtain a delisting authorization from
that state before it can manage the waste as non-hazardous in that
state.
II. Background
A. What is a delisting petition?
A delisting petition is a request from a generator to EPA or to an
authorized state to exclude or delist, from the RCRA list of hazardous
wastes, waste 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
[[Page 56560]]
any provision of 40 CFR parts 260 through 265 and 268. Section 260.22
provides generators the opportunity to petition the Administrator to
exclude a waste from a particular generating facility from the
hazardous waste lists.
C. What information must the generator supply?
Petitioners must provide sufficient information to EPA to allow EPA
to determine that the waste to be excluded does not meet any of the
criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In
addition, the Administrator must determine, where he/she has a
reasonable basis to believe that factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed could
cause the waste to be a hazardous waste and that such factors do not
warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What waste did IBM petition EPA to delist?
IBM petitioned EPA on July 11, 2008, to exclude from the lists of
hazardous waste contained in Sec. Sec. 261.31 and 261.32, F006
wastewater treatment sludge, generated from its facility in Essex
Junction, Vermont.
B. How much waste did IBM propose to delist?
IBM requested that EPA grant an exclusion for 3,150 cubic yards per
year of F006 wastewater treatment sludge.
C. How did IBM sample and analyze the waste data in this petition?
To support its petition, IBM submitted: (1) Facility information on
production processes and waste generation processes; (2) Historical
sampling data of the IWTP sludge; (3) Analytical results from four
samples for total concentrations for volatiles (SW-846 Method 8260B),
semi volatiles (SW-846 Method 8270C) and metals (SW-846 Method 6010B
except for mercury--SW-846 Method 7471A and selenium--SW-846 Method
7010), for compounds of concern (COCs); and (4) Analytical results from
four samples for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
extract values for volatiles (SW-846 Method 8260B), semi volatiles (SW-
846 Method 8270C) and metals (SW-846 Method 6010B except for mercury--
SW-846 Method 7470 and selenium--SM 3113B) for COCs.
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?
EPA received one email comment from a consultant regarding the
petition.
B. What was the comment and what was EPA's response?
Comment: Based on the condition that the resultant sludge is a
combination of three (3) independent waste streams (i.e. it appears
each waste stream is being diluted by two(2) other waste streams) it
would be prudent to require IBM to submit to EPA, or the landfill,
monthly waste rates from each of the three (3) independent waste
streams to ensure the contribution ratios are not dramatically
changing.
The removal of one waste process could potentially increase the
hazardous components by 50% from the other 2 waste streams. If volume
of sludge waste is a component in EPA's calculations related to overall
impact, then the increase, or reduction of a waste stream could impact
the results.
Response: EPA believes that the requirements found in Conditions 4,
5 and 6 of the final exclusion adequately address any changes in
operations or processes at the facility that could have an impact on
the composition of the delisted sludge.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability
and therefore is not a regulatory action subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it applies to a
particular facility only. Because this rule is of particular
applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to
the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to Sections 202, 204, and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (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 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
[[Page 56561]]
parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not required to submit a rule report
regarding today's action under Section 801 because this is a rule of
particular applicability. 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
believes 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.
List 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 22, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
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, 6924(y) and
6938.
0
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--Waste Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 1--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
IBM Corporation.................. Essex Junction, VT.. Wastewater Treatment Sludge (Hazardous Waste No. F006)
generated at a maximum annual rate of 3,150 cubic
yards per calendar year and disposed of in a Subtitle
D Landfill which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise
authorized by a state to accept the delisted
wastewater treatment sludge. IBM must implement a
testing program that meets the following conditions
for the exclusion to be valid:
1. Delisting Levels: (A) All leachable concentrations
for the following constituents must not exceed the
following levels (mg/L for TCLP): Arsenic--5.0;
Barium--100.0; Cadmium--1.0; Chromium--5.0; Lead--5.0;
Mercury--0.2; and, Nickel--32.4.
2. Waste Handling and Holding: (A) IBM must manage as
hazardous all WWTP sludge generated until it has
completed initial verification testing described in
paragraph (3)(A) and valid analyses show that
paragraph (1) is satisfied and written 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) for two consecutive quarterly
sampling events are non-hazardous. After approval is
received from EPA, IBM can manage and dispose of the
non-hazardous WWTP sludge according to all applicable
solid waste regulations.
(C) Not withstanding having received the initial
approval from EPA, if constituent levels in a later
sample exceed any of the Delisting Levels set in
paragraph (1), from that point forward, IBM must treat
all the waste covered by this exclusion as hazardous
until it is demonstrated that the waste again meets
the levels in paragraph (1). IBM must manage and
dispose of the waste generated under Subtitle C of
RCRA from the time that it becomes aware of any
exceedance.
3. Verification Testing Requirements: IBM must perform
sample collection and analyses in accordance with the
approved Quality Assurance Project Plan dated January
27, 2011. All samples shall be representative
composite samples according to appropriate methods. As
applicable to the method-defined parameters of
concern, analyses requiring the use of SW-846 methods
incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11 must be
used without substitution. As applicable, the SW-846
methods might include Methods 0010, 0011, 0020, 0023A,
0030, 0031, 0040, 0050, 0051, 0060, 0061, 1010A,
1020B,1110A, 1310B, 1311, 1312, 1320, 1330A, 9010C,
9012B, 9040C, 9045D, 9060A, 9070A (uses EPA Method
1664, Rev. A), 9071B, and 9095B. Methods must meet
Performance Based Measurement System Criteria in which
the Data Quality Objectives are to demonstrate that
samples of the IBM sludge are representative for all
constituents listed in paragraph (1). To verify that
the waste does not exceed the specified delisting
concentrations, for one year after the final exclusion
is granted, IBM must perform quarterly analytical
testing by sampling and analyzing the WWTP sludge as
follows:
(A) Quarterly Testing: (i) Collect two representative
composite samples of the WWTP sludge at quarterly
intervals after EPA grants the final exclusion. The
first composite samples must be taken within 30 days
after EPA grants the final approval. The second set of
samples must be taken at least 30 days after the first
set.
(ii) Analyze the samples for all constituents listed in
paragraph (1). Any waste regarding which a composite
sample is taken that exceeds the delisting levels
listed in paragraph (1) for the sludge must be
disposed as hazardous waste in accordance with the
applicable hazardous waste requirements from the time
that IBM becomes aware of any exceedance.
[[Page 56562]]
(iii) Within thirty (30) days after taking each
quarterly sample, IBM will report its analytical test
data to EPA. If levels of constituents measured in the
samples of the sludge do not exceed the levels set
forth in paragraph (1) of this exclusion for two
consecutive quarters, and EPA concurs with those
findings, IBM can manage and dispose the non-hazardous
sludge according to all applicable solid waste
regulations.
(B) Annual Testing: (i) If IBM completes the quarterly
testing specified in paragraph (3) above and no sample
contains a constituent at a level which exceeds the
limits set forth in paragraph (1), IBM may begin
annual testing as follows: IBM must test two
representative composite samples of the wastewater
treatment sludge (following the same protocols as
specified for quarterly sampling, above) for all
constituents listed in paragraph (1) at least once per
calendar year.
(ii) The samples for the annual testing taken for the
second and subsequent annual testing events shall be
taken within the same calendar month as the first
annual sample taken.
(iii) IBM shall submit an annual testing report to EPA
with its annual test results, within thirty (30) days
after taking each annual sample. The annual testing
report also shall include the total amount of waste in
cubic yards disposed during the calendar year.
4. Changes in Operating Conditions: If IBM
significantly changes the manufacturing or treatment
process described in the petition, or the chemicals
used in the manufacturing or treatment process, it
must notify the EPA in writing and may no longer
handle the wastes generated from the new process as
non-hazardous unless and until the wastes are shown to
meet the delisting levels set in paragraph (1), IBM
demonstrates that no new hazardous constituents listed
in appendix VIII of part 261 have been introduced, and
IBM has received written approval from EPA to manage
the wastes from the new process under this exclusion.
While the EPA may provide written approval of certain
changes, if there are changes that the EPA determines
are highly significant, the EPA may instead require
IBM to file a new delisting petition.
5. Data Submittals and Recordkeeping: IBM must submit
the information described below. If IBM fails to
submit the required data within the specified time or
maintain the required records on-site for the
specified time, EPA, at its discretion, will consider
this sufficient basis to reopen the exclusion as
described in paragraph (6). IBM must:
(A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph (3) to
the Chief, RCRA Waste Management & UST Section, U.S.
EPA Region 1, (OSRR07-1), 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Boston, MA 02109-3912, within the time specified.
All supporting data can be submitted on CD-ROM or some
comparable electronic media;
(B) Compile, summarize, and maintain on site for a
minimum of five years and make available for
inspection records of operating conditions, including
monthly and annual volumes of WWTP sludge generated,
analytical data, including quality control
information, and copies of the notification(s)
required in paragraph (7);
(C) Submit with all data a signed copy of the
certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).
6. Reopener Language--(A) If, anytime after disposal of
the delisted waste, IBM possesses or is otherwise made
aware of any environmental data (including but not
limited to leachate data or groundwater monitoring
data) or any other relevant data to the delisted waste
indicating that any constituent is at a concentration
in the leachate higher than the specified delisting
concentration, then IBM must report such data, in
writing, to the Regional Administrator and to the
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Secretary 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 IBM 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 IBM with an
opportunity to present information as to why the
proposed Agency action is not necessary or to suggest
an alternative action. IBM shall have 30 days from the
date of the Regional Administrator's notice to present
the information.
(D) If after 30 days IBM 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.
7. Notification Requirements: IBM must do the following
before transporting the delisted waste:
(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 the one-time written notification if it
ships the delisted waste to a different disposal
facility. Failure to provide this notification will
result in a violation of the delisting petition and a
possible revocation of the decision.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56563]]
[FR Doc. 2012-22571 Filed 9-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P