Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion, 49252-49260 [2014-19771]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
49252
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Test, Aircraft Heaters, dated May 17, 2014, is
applicable service information.
(2) If the combustion heater fails the PDT,
before further flight, do one of the corrective
actions listed in paragraphs (k)(1) through
(k)(3) of this AD.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(k) Combustion Heater Overhaul/Disable/
Removal
If the combustion heater fails the PDT
required in paragraph (j) of this AD, before
further flight, do one of the actions in
paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(3), including all
subparagraphs of this AD:
(1) Overhaul the heater and all exterior
supporting components. No repairs to the
combustion tube are allowed. Replace any
defective combustion tube with an FAAapproved airworthy combustion tube.
Follow, as applicable, Stewart-Warner South
Wind Corporation South Wind Service
Manual for Stewart Warner South Wind
Aircraft Heaters 8240–A, 8240–C, 8259–A,
8259–C, 8259–DL, 8259–FL1, 8259–GL1,
8259–GL2, Form No. 09–998, revised:
December 1969; South Wind Division
Stewart-Warner Corporation Beech Aircraft
Corporation Service Manual PM–20688, Part
No. 404–001039 Heater Assy. (SW 8253–B),
revised: April 1965; or South Wind Division
Stewart-Warner Corporation Service Manual
South Wind Aircraft Heater 8472 Series,
Form No. 09–1015, issued: April 1975.
Note 3 to paragraph (k)(1) of this AD: The
Model 8248 combustion heater is part of the
8240 series of combustion heaters. The
Stewart-Warner South Wind Corporation
South Wind Service Manual for Stewart
Warner South Wind Aircraft Heaters 8240–A,
8240–C, 8259–A, 8259–C, 8259–DL, 8259–
FL1, 8259–GL1, 8259–GL2, Form No. 09–998,
revised: December 1969, is applicable service
information.
(2) Disable the heater by the following
actions:
(i) Disconnect and cap the heater fuel
supply;
(ii) Disconnect circuit breakers;
(iii) Tag the main switch ‘‘Heater
Inoperable’’; and
(iv) The ventilation blower can stay
functional.
(3) Remove the heater by the following
actions:
(i) Disconnect and cap the heater fuel
supply;
(ii) Disconnect/remove circuit breakers;
(iii) Remove exhaust pipe extension;
(iv) Cap the exhaust opening;
(v) Remove the heater; and
(vi) Do weight and balance for the aircraft.
(l) Credit for Actions Accomplished in
Accordance With Previous Service
Information
(1) This paragraph provides credit for any
inspection required in paragraph (g) of this
AD and any overhaul required in paragraph
(k)(1) of this AD based on any inspection of
this AD if already done before the effective
date of this AD following, as applicable,
Stewart-Warner South Wind Corporation
South Wind Service Manual for Stewart
Warner South Wind Aircraft Heaters 8240–A,
8240–C, 8259–A, 8259–C, 8259–DL, 8259–
FL1, 8259–GL1, 8259–GL2, Form No. 09–998,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Aug 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
revised: December 1969; South Wind
Division Stewart-Warner Corporation Beech
Aircraft Corporation Service Manual PM–
20688, Part No. 404–001039 Heater Assy.
(SW 8253–B), revised: April 1965; or South
Wind Division Stewart-Warner Corporation
Service Manual South Wind Aircraft Heater
8472 Series, Form No. 09–1015, issued: April
1975.
Note 4 to paragraph (l)(1) of this AD: The
Model 8248 combustion heater is part of the
8240 series of combustion heaters. The
Stewart-Warner South Wind Corporation
South Wind Service Manual for Stewart
Warner South Wind Aircraft Heaters 8240–A,
8240–C, 8259–A, 8259–C, 8259–DL, 8259–
FL1, 8259–GL1, 8259–GL2, Form No. 09–998,
revised: December 1969, is applicable service
information.
(2) Repair of the combustion tube is
prohibited, and this AD does not allow credit
for any combustion tube repair.
(m) Special Flight Permit
Special flight permits are permitted in
accordance with 14 CFR 39.23 with the
following limitation: Use of the heater is not
allowed.
(n) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Chicago Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector
or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly
to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in
paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC,
notify your appropriate principal inspector,
or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
(3) AMOCs approved for AD 81–09–09 (46
FR 24936, May 4, 1981) are approved as
AMOCs for this AD.
(o) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD,
contact Chung-Der Young, Aerospace
Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification
Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL
60018–4696; telephone (847) 294–7309; fax
(847) 294–7834 email: chungder.young@faa.gov.
(2) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Meggitt Control Systems, 3
Industrial Drive, Troy, Indiana 47588;
telephone: (812) 547–7071; fax: (812) 547–
2488; email: infotroy@meggitt.com; Internet:
www.stewart-warner.com. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information
on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call (816) 329–4148.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August
13, 2014.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–19729 Filed 8–19–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R07–RCRA–2014–0452; FRL–9915–
45–Region 7]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for
comment.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA, also, ‘‘the Agency’’ or
‘‘we’’) is proposing to grant a petition
submitted by the John Deere Des Moines
Works (John Deere) of Deere &
Company, in Ankeny, Iowa to exclude
or ‘‘delist’’ up to 600 tons per calendar
year of F006/F019 wastewater treatment
sludge filter cake generated by John
Deere’s wastewater treatment system
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 John Deere. This proposed
decision, if finalized, would
conditionally exclude the petitioned
waste from the requirements of
hazardous waste regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA).
This exclusion would be valid only
when the wastewater treatment sludge
filter cake is disposed of in a Subtitle D
landfill which is permitted, licensed, or
otherwise authorized by a State to
manage industrial solid waste.
If finalized, EPA would conclude that
John Deere’s petitioned waste is
nonhazardous with respect to the
original listing criteria and that there are
no other current factors which would
cause the waste to be hazardous.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 19, 2014. EPA will
stamp comments received after the close
of the comment period as late. These
late comments may not be considered in
formulating a final decision. Any person
may request a hearing on the proposed
decision by filing a request to EPA by
September 4, 2014. The request must
contain the information prescribed in 40
CFR 260.20(d).
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
RCRA–2014–0452 by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: herstowski.ken@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (913) 551–7631, to the
attention of Ken Herstowski.
4. Mail: Ken Herstowski, Air and
Waste Management Division, Waste
Remediation and Permits Branch, U.S.
EPA Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa KS 66219.
5. Hand Delivery: Ken Herstowski, Air
and Waste Management Division, Waste
Remediation and Permits Branch, U.S.
EPA Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, KS 66219. Such deliveries are
only accepted during normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. Please contact Ken
Herstowski at (913) 551–7631.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R07–RCRA–2014–
0452. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
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 through
www.regulations.gov or email
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The
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 email comment directly
to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Aug 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
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
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Region 7 offices at 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa KS 66219 by
appointment only during normal hours
of operation. Appointments must be
made in advance to view hard copy
docket materials by contacting Ken
Herstowski at (913) 551–7631 or by
email at herstowski.ken@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken
Herstowski, Air and Waste Management
Division, Waste Remediation and
Permits Branch, U.S. EPA Region 7,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa KS
66219; telephone number: (913) 551–
7631; fax number (913) 551–7631; email
address: herstowski.ken@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA proposing?
B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this
delisting?
C. How will John Deere manage the waste,
if it is delisted?
D. When would the proposed delisting
exclusion be finalized?
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 John Deere petition EPA
to delist?
B. How does John Deere generate the
waste?
C. How did John Deere sample and analyze
the petitioned waste?
D. What were the results of John Deere’s
analysis of the waste?
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of
delisting this waste?
F. What did EPA conclude about John
Deere’s waste?
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. When would EPA finalize the proposed
delisting exclusion?
B. How will John Deere manage the waste
if it is delisted?
C. With what conditions must the
petitioner comply?
D. What happens if John Deere violates the
terms and conditions of the exclusion?
V. How would this action affect the states?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
Title 40 CFR 260.20 allows any
person to petition the Administrator to
modify or revoke any provision of parts
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49253
260 through 266, 268 and 273. Section
260.22(a) specifically provides
generators the opportunity to petition
the Administrator to exclude a waste on
a ‘‘generator specific’’ basis from the
hazardous waste lists.
The Agency bases its proposed
decision to grant a petition on an
evaluation of waste-specific information
provided by the petitioner. This
proposed decision, if finalized, would
conditionally exclude the petitioned
waste from the requirements of
hazardous waste regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA).
If finalized, we would conclude the
petitioned waste from this facility is
non-hazardous with respect to the
original listing criteria and that the
waste process used will substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents from this waste.
We would also conclude that the
processes minimize short-term and
long-term threats from the petitioned
waste to human health and the
environment. The EPA is proposing to
grant a petition submitted by John Deere
Des Moines Works of Deere and
Company (John Deere) located in
Ankeny, Iowa, to exclude or delist an
annual volume of 600 tons per year of
F006/F019 wastewater treatment sludge
filter cake from the lists of hazardous
waste set forth in title 40 CFR 261.31,
Hazardous wastes from non-specific
sources. John Deere 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 the EPA’s evaluation
described in section III, in which we
reviewed the description of the process
which generates the waste and the
analytical data submitted by John Deere,
we agree with the petitioner that the
waste is nonhazardous. 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.
A. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing: (1) To grant John
Deere’s delisting petition to have its
WWTP sludge excluded, or delisted,
from the definition of a hazardous
waste; and subject to certain verification
and monitoring conditions. (2) To use
the Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS) to evaluate the potential impact
of the petitioned waste on human health
and the environment. The Agency used
this model to predict the concentration
of hazardous constituents released from
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
49254
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules
the petitioned waste, once it is
disposed.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this
delisting?
John Deere’s petition requests an
exclusion from the F006 waste listing
pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22.
John Deere does not believe that the
petitioned waste meets the criteria for
which EPA listed it. John Deere also
believes no additional constituents or
factors could cause the waste to be
hazardous. EPA’s review of this petition
included consideration of the original
listing criteria and the additional factors
required by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
See section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(1)–(4)
(hereinafter all sectional references are
to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated).
In making the initial delisting
determination, EPA evaluated the
petitioned waste against the listing
criteria and factors cited in
§ 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this
review, EPA agrees with the petitioner
that the waste is non-hazardous with
respect to the original listing criteria. If
EPA had found, based on this review,
that the waste remained hazardous
based on the factors for which the waste
was originally listed, EPA would have
proposed to deny the petition. EPA
evaluated the waste with respect to
other factors or criteria to assess
whether there is a reasonable basis to
believe that such additional factors
could cause the waste to be hazardous.
EPA considered whether the waste is
acutely toxic, the concentration of the
constituents in the waste, their tendency
to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their
persistence in the environment once
released from the waste, plausible and
specific types of management of the
petitioned waste, the quantities of waste
generated, and waste variability. EPA
believes that the petitioned waste does
not meet the listing criteria and thus
should not be a listed waste. EPA’s
proposed decision to delist waste from
John Deere is based on the information
submitted in support of this rule,
including descriptions of the wastes and
analytical data from the John Deere,
Ankeny, IA facility.
C. How will John Deere manage the
waste, if it is delisted?
If the sludge is delisted, the WWTP
sludge from John Deere will be disposed
at a RCRA Subtitle D landfill permitted
by the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Aug 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
D. When would the proposed delisting
exclusion be finalized?
RCRA section 3001(f) specifically
requires EPA to provide a notice and an
opportunity for comment before
granting or denying a final exclusion.
Thus, EPA will not grant the exclusion
until it addresses all timely public
comments (including those at public
hearings, if any) on this proposal.
RCRA section 3010(b)(1) at 42
U.S.C.A. 6930(b)(1), allows rules to
become effective in less than six months
when the regulated facility does not
need the six-month period to come into
compliance. That is the case here,
because this rule, if finalized, would
reduce the existing requirements for
persons generating hazardous wastes.
EPA believes that this exclusion
should be effective immediately upon
final publication because a six-month
deadline is not necessary to achieve the
purpose of section 3010(b), and a later
effective date would impose
unnecessary hardship and expense on
this petitioner. These reasons also
provide good cause for making this rule
effective immediately, upon final
publication, under the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
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
publishes 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
facility meeting the listing description
may not be.
The procedure to exclude or delist a
waste in 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22
allows a person, or a facility, to submit
a petition to the EPA or to an authorized
state demonstrating that a specific waste
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
the Agency to decide whether any
factors in addition to those for which
the waste was listed warrant retaining it
as a hazardous waste. (See § 260.22, 42
U.S.C. 6921(f) and the background
documents for the listed wastes.)
If a delisting petition is granted, the
generator remains obligated under
RCRA to confirm that the waste remains
nonhazardous.
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 John Deere’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
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules
wastes are also eligible for exclusion but
remain hazardous until excluded.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. What waste did John Deere petition
EPA to delist?
On January 28, 2014, John Deere
(through its consultant) petitioned EPA
to exclude from the list of hazardous
wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31,
F006/F019 Waste Water Treatment
Sludge Filter Cake (Filter Cake) from
dewatering sludge generated by the
plant wastewater treatment facility from
the John Deere facility located in
Ankeny, Iowa. The filter cake is subject
to two waste listings as it is the result
of treating a mixture of wastewater from
different manufacturing processes. F006
is defined in § 261.31 as ‘‘Wastewater
treatment sludges from electroplating
operations . . .’’ F019 is defined in
§ 261.31 as ‘‘Wastewater treatment
sludges from the chemical conversion
coating of aluminum . . .’’ John Deere
claims that the petitioned waste does
not meet the criteria for which F006 was
listed (i.e., cadmium, hexavalent
chromium, nickel, cyanide (complexed))
or for which F019 was listed (i.e.,
hexavalent chromium, cyanide
(complexed)) and that there are no other
factors which would cause the waste to
be hazardous. Specifically, the petition
request is for a standard exclusion for
600 tons per calendar year of Filter
Cake.
B. How does John Deere generate the
waste?
The Filter Cake John Deere generates
is from the plant wastewater treatment
facility. Wastewater is generated from a
variety of manufacturing activities at the
facility. Approximately 106,000 gallons
per day of [total] wastewater is
conveyed to the wastewater treatment
facility. The wastewater is a
combination of wastewater from
washing/cleaning, plating and coating
metal parts manufactured and/or used
in the assembly of agricultural
equipment at the facility. Those
processes that account for highest
wastewater generation include: chrome
electroplating (15,000 gallons per day or
15,000 gpd) the source of the
wastewater for the F006 listing, E-Coat
system (54,000 gpd) the source of the
F019 listing, heat treat (10,000 gpd), and
Department 20C Wash Line (16,000
gpd). The wastewater from chrome
electroplating is pre-treated to reduce
hexavalent chromium to trivalent
chromium before it is transferred to
John Deere’s wastewater treatment
facility generating the Filter Cake. All
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Aug 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
wastewater generated onsite is
transferred to the wastewater treatment
facility where it is treated to remove
dirt, oil, grease, metals and other
constituents before it is discharged
under a ‘‘Water Contribution Permit’’
(Permit Number A10138 issued by the
[City of Des Moines] Waste Water
Regulation Authority) via sewers to a
publicly owned treatment works
operated by the City of Des Moines.
C. How did John Deere sample and
analyze the petitioned waste?
To support its petition, John Deere
submitted: (1) Facility information on
production processes and waste
generation processes; (2) initial Filter
Cake composite sample analytical
results to determine constituents of
concern (COC); and (3) Analytical
results from six composite samples of
Filter Cake for the COC. The initial
sample was analyzed for EPA’s list of
hazardous constituents in 40 CFR part
261, appendix VIII, pesticides, PCBs.
The COC selected from the initial
composite sample results are barium,
chromium, hexavalent chromium,
copper, lead, mercury, nickel,
vanadium, zinc, cyanide, acetone and
methyl ethyl ketone. Both total and
leachable concentrations of the COC in
the Filter Cake were determined.
John Deere generated the sampling
data used in the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software (DRAS) under a
Sampling Plan and Quality Assurance
Project Plan (June 2012 Revision). EPA
believes that the sampling procedures
used by John Deere satisfy EPA’s criteria
for collecting representative samples of
the F006/F019 waste.
D. What were the results of John Deere’s
analysis of the waste?
EPA believes that John Deere’s
analytical characterization provides a
reasonable basis to grant John Deere’s
petition for an exclusion of the
[wastewater treatment sludge] Filter
Cake. Furthermore, EPA believes the
data submitted in support of the petition
show that the sludge is non-hazardous.
Analytical data for the wastewater
treatment sludge samples were used in
the DRAS to develop delisting levels.
The data for the total concentration of
COC in the Filter Cake are as follows:
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)
Barium—643; Copper—959;
Chromium—15,000; Hexavalent
Chromium—13.6; Cyanide—1.92;
Lead—291; Mercury—0.635; Nickel—
1,010; Vanadium—253; Zinc—3,390;
Acetone—9.13; and Methyl Ethyl
Ketone—0.191. The data for the leachate
concentration of COC in the Filter Cake
are as follows: milligrams per liter (mg/
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49255
l) Barium—.0272; Copper—0.442;
Chromium—0.826; Cyanide—<0.01;
Lead—<0.05; Mercury—0.000702;
Nickel—0.744; Vanadium—0.0164;
Zinc—0.403; Acetone—0.001; and
Methyl Ethyl Ketone—0.001. Note that
the above levels represent the highest
COC concentration result reported. If
the result was reported as ‘‘non-detect’’
(shown above by a ‘‘<’’) the detection
limit was used in the analysis.
Hexavalent chromium was analyzed
with DRAS at milligrams per liter (mg/
l) 0.0826 (one tenth of the chromium
leachate value).
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 groundwater,
surface water and air. We evaluated
John Deere’s petitioned waste using the
Agency’s Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS) described in 65 FR
58015 (September 27, 2000), 65 FR
75637 (December 4, 2000), and 73 FR
28768 (May 19, 2008) to predict the
maximum allowable concentrations of
hazardous constituents that may be
released from the petitioned waste after
disposal and determined the potential
impact of the disposal of John Deere’s
petitioned waste on human health and
the environment. 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 and
Transformation Products (EPACMTP).
From a release to groundwater, the
DRAS considers routes of exposure to a
human receptor of ingestion of
contaminated groundwater, inhalation
from groundwater while showering and
dermal contact from groundwater while
bathing.
From a release to surface water by
erosion of waste from an open landfill
into stormwater 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.
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
49256
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules
At a benchmark cancer risk of one in
one hundred thousand (1 × 10¥5) and a
benchmark 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
1000 cubic yards disposed in a landfill
for 20 years after which time the landfill
is closed. We used the maximum
reported total and TCLP leachate
concentrations as inputs to estimate the
constituent concentrations in the
groundwater, soil, surface water and air.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
F. What did EPA conclude about John
Deere’s waste?
The maximum reported
concentrations of the hazardous
constituents found in this waste are
presented above in section D. The
maximum allowable total COC
concentrations in the Filter Cake as
determined by the DRAS are as follows:
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)
Barium—2.85 × 107; Copper—5.34 ×
106; Chromium (III)—4.56 × 1010;
Hexavalent Chromium—1.36 × 104;
Cyanide—2.99 × 106; Lead—1.09 × 107;
Mercury—1.86 × 101; Nickel—4.76 ×
106; Vanadium—1.52 × 108; Zinc—1.38
× 107; Acetone—3.63 × 108; and Methyl
Ethyl Ketone—1.45 × 109. The
maximum allowable leachate COC
concentrations in the Filter Cake as
determined by the DRAS are as follows:
milligrams per liter (mg/l) Copper—1.78
× 102; Hexavalent Chromium—1.38 ×
101; Cyanide—2.27 × 101; Lead—4.18;
Nickel—9.78 × 101; Vanadium—2.47 ×
101; Zinc—1.48 × 103; Acetone—3.84 ×
103; and. The maximum allowable
leachate COC concentrations in the
Filter Cake as determined by TCLP are
as follows: milligrams per liter (mg/l)
Barium—100; Chromium (total)—5;
Mercury—2 × 10¥1; and Methyl Ethyl
Ketone—200. The concentrations of all
constituents in both the waste and the
leachate are below the allowable
concentrations. We conclude that John
Deere’s Filter Cake is not a substantial
or potential hazard to human health and
the environment when disposed of in a
Subtitle D landfill.
We propose to grant an exclusion for
the Filter Cake. If this exclusion is
finalized, John Deere must dispose of
the Filter Cake in a Subtitle D landfill
permitted, licensed or otherwise
authorized by a state RCRA solid waste
permit program, and will remain
obligated to verify that the waste meets
the allowable concentrations set forth
here. John Deere must also continue to
determine whether the Filter Cake is
identified in subpart C of 40 CFR part
261.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Aug 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
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
therefore a final rule granting John
Deere’s petition is proposed to be
effective immediately upon publication
in the Federal Register. Similarly, since
John Deere is already required to
comply with RCRA Subtitle C for the
management of the petitioned waste, a
final rule denying the petition would be
effective immediately upon publication
in the Federal Register as the petitioned
waste would remain status quo—a
hazardous waste.
B. How will John Deere manage the
waste if it is delisted?
If the petitioned waste is delisted,
John Deere must dispose of it in a
subtitle D landfill which is permitted,
licensed, or otherwise authorized by a
state to manage industrial waste.
C. With what conditions must the
petitioner comply?
The petitioner, John Deere, must
comply with the conditions which will
be in 40 CFR part 261, appendix IX,
table 1. The text below gives the
rationale and details of those
requirements.
(1) Delisting Levels: This paragraph
provides the levels of constituents for
which John Deere must test the WWTP
sludge, below which these wastes
would be considered non-hazardous.
EPA selected the set of constituents and
levels specified in paragraph (1) of 40
CFR part 261, appendix IX, table 1, (the
exclusion language) based on
information in the petition, information
from DRAS and variability of the WWTP
sludge composition. The proposed
levels EPA compiled the constituents
list from the composition of the waste,
descriptions of John Deere’s treatment
process, previous test data provided for
the waste, and the respective healthbased levels used in delisting decisionmaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(2) Waste Holding and Handling: The
purpose of this paragraph is to ensure
that John Deere manages and disposes of
any Filter Cake that contains hazardous
levels of inorganic and organic
constituents according to Subtitle C of
RCRA. Managing the Filter Cake as a
hazardous waste until initial
verification testing is performed will
protect against improper handling of
hazardous material. Unless and until
EPA concurs that the initial verification
data collected under paragraph (3)
supports the data provided in the
petition, the exclusion will not cover
the petitioned waste. The exclusion is
effective upon publication in the
Federal Register but the disposal as
non-hazardous waste cannot begin until
two quarters of verification sampling is
completed and an approval is obtained
from EPA.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements:
John Deere must implement a
verification testing program on the Filter
Cake to assure that the sludge does not
exceed the maximum levels specified in
paragraph (1) of the exclusion language.
The first part of the verification testing
program is the quarterly testing of
representative samples of the Filter Cake
during the first year of waste generation
(two quarters prior to obtaining written
EPA approval and two additional
quarters). The proposed testing would
verify that John Deere operates a
treatment facility where the constituent
concentrations of the Filter Cake do not
exhibit unacceptable temporal and
spatial levels of toxic constituents. John
Deere would begin quarterly sampling
30 days after the final exclusion as
described in paragraph (3)(A) of the
exclusion language. Consequently this
program will ensure that the sludge is
evaluated in terms of variation in
constituent concentrations in the Filter
Cake over time. Following two
consecutive quarters of sampling where
the levels of constituents do not exceed
the levels in paragraph (1), John Deere
can then manage and dispose of the
Filter Cake as non-hazardous in
accordance with all applicable solid
waste regulations following EPA
approval. If EPA determines that the
data collected under this paragraph does
not support the data provided in the
petition, the exclusion will not cover
the generated Filter Cake. John Deere
must then prove through a new
demonstration that its Filter Cake meets
the conditions of the exclusion.
The second part of the verification
testing program is the annual testing of
representative samples of the Filter
Cake, per paragraph (3)(B) of the
exclusion language. To confirm that the
characteristics of the waste do not
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules
change significantly over time, John
Deere must continue to analyze a
representative sample of the Filter Cake
on an annual basis. Annual testing
requires analyzing the full list of
constituents in paragraph (1) of the
exclusion language. If operating
conditions change as described in
paragraph (4) of the exclusion language,
John Deere must reinstate all testing in
paragraph (1) of the exclusion language.
John Deere must then prove through a
new demonstration that its Filter Cake
meets the conditions of the exclusion. If
the annual testing of the Filter Cake
does not meet the delisting
requirements in paragraph (1), John
Deere must notify EPA according to the
requirements in paragraph (6) of the
exclusion language. The facility must
provide sampling results that support
the rationale that the delisting exclusion
should not be withdrawn.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions:
Paragraph (4) of the exclusion language
would allow John Deere the flexibility
of modifying its processes (for example,
changes in equipment or operating
conditions). However, if significant
changes to the manufacturing or
treatment process described in the
petition, or the chemicals used in the
manufacturing or treatment process are
made, then John Deere must prove the
that the modified process(es)/chemicals
will not affect the composition or type
of Filter Cake generated and must
request approval from EPA. EPA will
determine if these changes will result in
additional COCs. John Deere must
manage Filter Cake generated during the
new process demonstration as
hazardous waste until it has obtained
written approval from EPA and
paragraph (3) of the exclusion language
is satisfied.
If the proposed exclusion is made
final, it will apply only to a maximum
of 600 tons per calendar year of Filter
Cake generated at John Deere after
successful verification testing. EPA
would require John Deere to file a new
delisting petition if it generates waste
volumes greater than 600 tons per
calendar year of Filter Cake. John Deere
must manage these greater volumes as
hazardous waste unless and until EPA
grants a new exclusion.
EPA may review and approve changes
in writing or alternatively may require
John Deere to file a new delisting
petition under any of the following
circumstances:
(a) If it significantly alters the
wastewater treatment process;
(b) If it significantly changes from the
current manufacturing process(es)
described in the John Deere petition; or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Aug 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
(c) If it makes any changes that could
affect the composition or type of waste
generated such that the changes would
cause any of the constituents in
paragraph (1) of the exclusion language
to potentially be above the delisting
levels or would introduce any new
constituents into the waste.
(5) Data Submittals and
Recordkeeping: To provide appropriate
documentation that John Deere’s Filter
Cake is meeting the delisting levels,
John Deere must submit reports to EPA
as specified in the conditions, and must
compile, summarize, and keep delisting
records on-site for a minimum of five
years. It must keep all analytical data
obtained through paragraph (3) of the
exclusion language including quality
control information for five years.
Paragraph (5) of the exclusion language
requires that John Deere furnish the data
upon request for inspection by any
employee or representative of EPA or
the State of Iowa.
(6) Reopener: The purpose of
paragraph (6) of the exclusion language
is to require John Deere to disclose new
or different information related to a
condition at the facility or disposal of
the Filter Cake, if it is pertinent to the
delisting. This provision will allow EPA
to reevaluate the exclusion, if a source
provides new or additional information
to EPA. EPA will evaluate the
information on which EPA based the
decision to see if it is still correct, or if
circumstances have changed so that the
information is no longer correct or
would cause EPA to deny the petition,
if presented.
This provision expressly requires
John Deere to report differing site
conditions or assumptions used in the
petition in addition to failure to meet
the annual testing conditions within 10
days of discovery. If EPA discovers such
information itself or from a third party,
it can act on it as appropriate. The
language being proposed is similar to
those provisions found in RCRA
regulations governing no-migration
petitions at § 268.6.
It is EPA’s position that it has the
authority under RCRA and the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 551 (1978) et seq., to reopen a
delisting decision when it receives new
information that calls into question the
assumptions underlying the delisting.
EPA believes a clear statement of its
authority in delisting is merited in light
of EPA’s experience. See the Federal
Register notices regarding Reynolds
Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 (July
14, 1997) and 62 FR 63458 (December
1, 1997) where the delisted waste
leached at greater concentrations into
the environment than the
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49257
concentrations predicted when
conducting the TCLP, leading EPA to
repeal the delisting. If an immediate
threat to human health and the
environment presents itself, EPA will
continue to address these situations on
a case-by-case basis. Where necessary,
EPA will make a good cause finding to
justify emergency rulemaking. See APA
section 553(b).
(7) Notification Requirements: In
order to adequately track wastes that
have been delisted, EPA is requiring
that John Deere provide a one-time
written notification to any state
regulatory agency through which or to
which the delisted waste is being
transported. John Deere must provide
this notification 60 days before
commencing this activity. In addition to
providing this notification, John Deere
is advised to verify with each state the
status of EPA’s delisting decision under
state law (see the discussion in Section
V. for specifics).
D. What happens if John Deere violates
the terms and conditions of the
exclusion?
If John Deere violates the terms and
conditions established in the exclusion,
the Filter Cake would not be exempt
from subtitle C since this is a
conditional exclusion, and thus the
Filter Cake would be subject to
hazardous waste management
requirements. EPA also could then
initiate procedures to withdraw the
exclusion. Where there is an immediate
threat to human health and the
environment, EPA will evaluate the
need for enforcement activities on a
case-by-case basis. EPA expects John
Deere to conduct the appropriate waste
analysis and comply with the criteria
explained above in paragraph (1) of the
exclusion.
V. How would this action affect the
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). Thus, the delisting would be
valid in Iowa on the effective date of a
final rule delisting the petitioned waste.
However, whether the wastes will be
delisted in other States which have been
authorized to administer the RCRA
program will vary depending upon the
authorization status of the States and
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
49258
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
the particular requirements regarding
delisted wastes in the various States.
Some 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
section 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. The petitioner must 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 and
regulations affecting transport and
disposal of the petitioned waste.
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 John
Deere transports the Federally excluded
waste to or manages the waste in any
state with delisting authorization, John
Deere must obtain a delisting
authorization from that state before it
can manage the waste as non-hazardous
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Aug 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
proposed rule does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’,
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule.
Similarly, because this rule will affect
only a particular facility, this proposed
rule does not have tribal implications,
as specified in Executive Order 13175,
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this rule. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe
the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The
basis for this belief is that the Agency
used DRAS, which considers health and
safety risks to children, to calculate the
maximum allowable concentrations for
this rule. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. This rule does not involve
technical standards; thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’, (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule,
EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report which includes a
copy of the rule to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. Section 804
exempts from section 801 the following
types of rules: (1) Rules of particular
applicability; (2) rules relating to agency
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
management or personnel; and (3) rules
of agency organization, procedure, or
practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency
parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not
required to submit a rule report
regarding today’s action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular
applicability. 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
proposed 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: Section 3001(f) RCRA, 42
U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: August 7, 2014.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
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 §§ 260.20 and 260.22
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules
49259
TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
Address
Waste description
*
John Deere Des
Moines Works
of Deere &
Company.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Facility
*
Ankeny, IA ........
*
*
*
*
*
Wastewater Treatment Sludge Filter Cake (WWTS Filter Cake) (Hazardous Waste No. F006/F019) generated from combined onsite wastewater treatment at the Ankeny, IA, facility wastewater treatment plant
at a maximum annual rate of 600 tons 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 WWTS Filter Cake.
John Deere must implement a testing program that meets the following conditions for the exclusion to be
valid:
1. Delisting Levels: (A) The WWTS Filter Cake shall not exhibit any of the ‘‘Characteristics of Hazardous
Waste in 40 CFR 261, Subpart C. (B) All TCLP leachable concentrations (40 CFR 261.24(a)) 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. (C) EPA SW–846 Method
1313 Extraction at pH 2.88, 7 and 13 concentration of Chromium (hexavalent) must not exceed (mg/l)
0.087. (D) All total concentrations for the following constituents must not exceed the following levels
(mg/kg): Antimony—103; Arsenic—52; Barium—965; Beryllium—21; Cadmium—10; Chromium (total)—
22,500; Cobalt—11; Copper—1439; Lead—437; Nickel—1,515; Selenium—52; Silver—26; Thallium—52;
Tin—68; Vanadium—380; Zinc—5,085; Mercury—1; Chromium (hexavalent)—20; Cyanide—3, Oil and
Grease—32,250; Acetone—8; Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK)—0.3.
2. Waste Handling and Holding: (A) John Deere must manage as hazardous all WWTS Filter Cake 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 from EPA. (B) Levels of constituents measured in the samples of the WWTS Filter Cake 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, John Deere can manage and dispose of the non-hazardous WWTS Filter Cake 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, John Deere 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). John Deere 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: John Deere must perform sample collection and analyses in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan submitted with the ‘‘John Deere Des Moines, Iowa, Sampling and Analysis Plan for Delisting of F006 and F019 Filter Cake, June 2012.’’ 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, 1313, 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 John Deere 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, John Deere 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 WWTS Filter Cake 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 John Deere becomes aware of any exceedance. (iii) Within thirty (30) days after taking
each quarterly sample, John Deere 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, John Deere can manage and
dispose the non-hazardous sludge according to all applicable solid waste regulations. (B) Annual Testing: (i) If John Deere 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), John Deere may
begin annual testing as follows: John Deere must test two representative composite samples of the
WWTS Filter Cake (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) John Deere 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 tons disposed during the calendar year.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Aug 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
49260
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
4. Changes in Operating Conditions: If John Deere 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 WWTS Filter Cake generated from the new
process as non-hazardous unless and until the WWTS Filter Cake is shown to meet the delisting levels
set in paragraph (1), John Deere demonstrates that no new hazardous constituents listed in appendix
VIII of part 261 have been introduced, and John Deere 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 John Deere to file a new delisting petition.
5. Data Submittals and Recordkeeping: John Deere must submit the information described below. If John
Deere 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). John Deere must: (A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph (3) to the
Chief, Waste Remediation and Permits Branch, US EPA Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa
KS 66219, 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
WWTS Filter Cake 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: (A) If, any time after disposal of the delisted waste, John Deere 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 John Deere must report
such data, in writing, to the Chief, Waste Remediation and Permits Branch, US EPA Region 7, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa KS 66219 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, EPA Region 7, 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 John Deere 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
John Deere with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed Agency action is not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. John Deere shall have 30 days from the date of the Regional
Administrator’s notice to present the information. (D) If after 30 days John Deere 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: John Deere 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 into 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.
*
*
*
ACTION:
[FR Doc. 2014–19771 Filed 8–19–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs
41 CFR Part 60–1
RIN 1250–AA03
Government Contractors: Requirement
To Report Summary Data on Employee
Compensation; Correction
Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs, Labor.
AGENCY:
16:21 Aug 19, 2014
*
Proposed rule; correction.
The Department of Labor,
Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs, published a document in the
Federal Register on August 8, 2014,
seeking comments on its notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding
reporting summary data on employee
compensation. This document corrects
errors in that document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Debra Carr, (202) 693–0103 (voice) or
(202) 693–1337 (TTY).
SUMMARY:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
Jkt 232001
Correction
In proposed rule FR Doc 2014–18557,
beginning on page 46562, in the issue of
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
*
August 8, 2014, make the following
corrections:
This NPRM is OMB control number
1250–AA03.
Under the heading, ‘‘Public
Comment,’’ in column 1 on page 46604,
the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for
finding the information collection
request (ICR) on RegInfo.gov ‘‘. . .
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=[INSERTICR
REFERENCENUMBER],’’ is corrected to
read ‘‘. . . https://www.reginfo.gov/
public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=
201407-1250-001.’’ While the original
link routed the reader to OMB’s Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) conclusion page, the revised link
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 161 (Wednesday, August 20, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49252-49260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19771]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R07-RCRA-2014-0452; FRL-9915-45-Region 7]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, also, ``the Agency''
or ``we'') is proposing to grant a petition submitted by the John Deere
Des Moines Works (John Deere) of Deere & Company, in Ankeny, Iowa to
exclude or ``delist'' up to 600 tons per calendar year of F006/F019
wastewater treatment sludge filter cake generated by John Deere's
wastewater treatment system 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 John Deere.
This proposed decision, if finalized, would conditionally exclude the
petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
This exclusion would be valid only when the wastewater treatment
sludge filter cake is disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is
permitted, licensed, or otherwise authorized by a State to manage
industrial solid waste.
If finalized, EPA would conclude that John Deere's petitioned waste
is nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria and that
there are no other current factors which would cause the waste to be
hazardous.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 19, 2014. EPA
will stamp comments received after the close of the comment period as
late. These late comments may not be considered in formulating a final
decision. Any person may request a hearing on the proposed decision by
filing a request to EPA by September 4, 2014. The request must contain
the information prescribed in 40 CFR 260.20(d).
[[Page 49253]]
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
RCRA-2014-0452 by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: herstowski.ken@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (913) 551-7631, to the attention of Ken Herstowski.
4. Mail: Ken Herstowski, Air and Waste Management Division, Waste
Remediation and Permits Branch, U.S. EPA Region 7, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa KS 66219.
5. Hand Delivery: Ken Herstowski, Air and Waste Management
Division, Waste Remediation and Permits Branch, U.S. EPA Region 7,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219. Such deliveries are only
accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please contact Ken
Herstowski at (913) 551-7631.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-RCRA-
2014-0452. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
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 through www.regulations.gov or
email information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The 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 email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA
Region 7 offices at 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa KS 66219 by
appointment only during normal hours of operation. Appointments must be
made in advance to view hard copy docket materials by contacting Ken
Herstowski at (913) 551-7631 or by email at herstowski.ken@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Herstowski, Air and Waste
Management Division, Waste Remediation and Permits Branch, U.S. EPA
Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa KS 66219; telephone number:
(913) 551-7631; fax number (913) 551-7631; email address:
herstowski.ken@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA proposing?
B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this delisting?
C. How will John Deere manage the waste, if it is delisted?
D. When would the proposed delisting exclusion be finalized?
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 John Deere petition EPA to delist?
B. How does John Deere generate the waste?
C. How did John Deere sample and analyze the petitioned waste?
D. What were the results of John Deere's analysis of the waste?
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
F. What did EPA conclude about John Deere's waste?
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. When would EPA finalize the proposed delisting exclusion?
B. How will John Deere manage the waste if it is delisted?
C. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?
D. What happens if John Deere violates the terms and conditions
of the exclusion?
V. How would this action affect the states?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
Title 40 CFR 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator
to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through 266, 268 and
273. Section 260.22(a) specifically provides generators the opportunity
to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator
specific'' basis from the hazardous waste lists.
The Agency bases its proposed decision to grant a petition on an
evaluation of waste-specific information provided by the petitioner.
This proposed decision, if finalized, would conditionally exclude the
petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
If finalized, we would conclude the petitioned waste from this
facility is non-hazardous with respect to the original listing criteria
and that the waste process used will substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from this waste. We
would also conclude that the processes minimize short-term and long-
term threats from the petitioned waste to human health and the
environment. The EPA is proposing to grant a petition submitted by John
Deere Des Moines Works of Deere and Company (John Deere) located in
Ankeny, Iowa, to exclude or delist an annual volume of 600 tons per
year of F006/F019 wastewater treatment sludge filter cake from the
lists of hazardous waste set forth in title 40 CFR 261.31, Hazardous
wastes from non-specific sources. John Deere 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 the EPA's evaluation described in section III, in which we
reviewed the description of the process which generates the waste and
the analytical data submitted by John Deere, we agree with the
petitioner that the waste is nonhazardous. 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.
A. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing: (1) To grant John Deere's delisting petition to
have its WWTP sludge excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a
hazardous waste; and subject to certain verification and monitoring
conditions. (2) To use the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) to
evaluate the potential impact of the petitioned waste on human health
and the environment. The Agency used this model to predict the
concentration of hazardous constituents released from
[[Page 49254]]
the petitioned waste, once it is disposed.
B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this delisting?
John Deere's petition requests an exclusion from the F006 waste
listing pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. John Deere does not
believe that the petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA
listed it. John Deere also believes no additional constituents or
factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA's review of this
petition included consideration of the original listing criteria and
the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(1)-(4) (hereinafter all sectional
references are to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated). In making the
initial delisting determination, EPA evaluated the petitioned waste
against the listing criteria and factors cited in Sec. 261.11(a)(2)
and (a)(3). Based on this review, EPA agrees with the petitioner that
the waste is non-hazardous with respect to the original listing
criteria. If EPA had found, based on this review, that the waste
remained hazardous based on the factors for which the waste was
originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny the petition. EPA
evaluated the waste with respect to other factors or criteria to assess
whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that such additional
factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA considered whether
the waste is acutely toxic, the concentration of the constituents in
the waste, their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their
persistence in the environment once released from the waste, plausible
and specific types of management of the petitioned waste, the
quantities of waste generated, and waste variability. EPA believes that
the petitioned waste does not meet the listing criteria and thus should
not be a listed waste. EPA's proposed decision to delist waste from
John Deere is based on the information submitted in support of this
rule, including descriptions of the wastes and analytical data from the
John Deere, Ankeny, IA facility.
C. How will John Deere manage the waste, if it is delisted?
If the sludge is delisted, the WWTP sludge from John Deere will be
disposed at a RCRA Subtitle D landfill permitted by the Iowa Department
of Natural Resources.
D. When would the proposed delisting exclusion be finalized?
RCRA section 3001(f) specifically requires EPA to provide a notice
and an opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final
exclusion. Thus, EPA will not grant the exclusion until it addresses
all timely public comments (including those at public hearings, if any)
on this proposal.
RCRA section 3010(b)(1) at 42 U.S.C.A. 6930(b)(1), allows rules to
become effective in less than six months when the regulated facility
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the
case here, because this rule, if finalized, would reduce the existing
requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes.
EPA believes that this exclusion should be effective immediately
upon final publication because a six-month deadline is not necessary to
achieve the purpose of section 3010(b), and a later effective date
would impose unnecessary hardship and expense on this petitioner. These
reasons also provide good cause for making this rule effective
immediately, upon final publication, under the Administrative Procedure
Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
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 publishes 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.
The procedure to exclude or delist a waste in 40 CFR 260.20 and
260.22 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 the Agency to
decide whether any factors in addition to those for which the waste was
listed warrant retaining it as a hazardous waste. (See Sec. 260.22, 42
U.S.C. 6921(f) and the background documents for the listed wastes.)
If a delisting petition is granted, the generator remains obligated
under RCRA to confirm that the waste remains nonhazardous.
C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a
delisting petition?
In reviewing this petition, we considered the original listing
criteria and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See 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 John Deere'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
[[Page 49255]]
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 John Deere petition EPA to delist?
On January 28, 2014, John Deere (through its consultant) petitioned
EPA to exclude from the list of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR
261.31, F006/F019 Waste Water Treatment Sludge Filter Cake (Filter
Cake) from dewatering sludge generated by the plant wastewater
treatment facility from the John Deere facility located in Ankeny,
Iowa. The filter cake is subject to two waste listings as it is the
result of treating a mixture of wastewater from different manufacturing
processes. F006 is defined in Sec. 261.31 as ``Wastewater treatment
sludges from electroplating operations . . .'' F019 is defined in Sec.
261.31 as ``Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion
coating of aluminum . . .'' John Deere claims that the petitioned waste
does not meet the criteria for which F006 was listed (i.e., cadmium,
hexavalent chromium, nickel, cyanide (complexed)) or for which F019 was
listed (i.e., hexavalent chromium, cyanide (complexed)) and that there
are no other factors which would cause the waste to be hazardous.
Specifically, the petition request is for a standard exclusion for 600
tons per calendar year of Filter Cake.
B. How does John Deere generate the waste?
The Filter Cake John Deere generates is from the plant wastewater
treatment facility. Wastewater is generated from a variety of
manufacturing activities at the facility. Approximately 106,000 gallons
per day of [total] wastewater is conveyed to the wastewater treatment
facility. The wastewater is a combination of wastewater from washing/
cleaning, plating and coating metal parts manufactured and/or used in
the assembly of agricultural equipment at the facility. Those processes
that account for highest wastewater generation include: chrome
electroplating (15,000 gallons per day or 15,000 gpd) the source of the
wastewater for the F006 listing, E-Coat system (54,000 gpd) the source
of the F019 listing, heat treat (10,000 gpd), and Department 20C Wash
Line (16,000 gpd). The wastewater from chrome electroplating is pre-
treated to reduce hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium before it
is transferred to John Deere's wastewater treatment facility generating
the Filter Cake. All wastewater generated onsite is transferred to the
wastewater treatment facility where it is treated to remove dirt, oil,
grease, metals and other constituents before it is discharged under a
``Water Contribution Permit'' (Permit Number A10138 issued by the [City
of Des Moines] Waste Water Regulation Authority) via sewers to a
publicly owned treatment works operated by the City of Des Moines.
C. How did John Deere sample and analyze the petitioned waste?
To support its petition, John Deere submitted: (1) Facility
information on production processes and waste generation processes; (2)
initial Filter Cake composite sample analytical results to determine
constituents of concern (COC); and (3) Analytical results from six
composite samples of Filter Cake for the COC. The initial sample was
analyzed for EPA's list of hazardous constituents in 40 CFR part 261,
appendix VIII, pesticides, PCBs. The COC selected from the initial
composite sample results are barium, chromium, hexavalent chromium,
copper, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium, zinc, cyanide, acetone and
methyl ethyl ketone. Both total and leachable concentrations of the COC
in the Filter Cake were determined.
John Deere generated the sampling data used in the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software (DRAS) under a Sampling Plan and Quality Assurance
Project Plan (June 2012 Revision). EPA believes that the sampling
procedures used by John Deere satisfy EPA's criteria for collecting
representative samples of the F006/F019 waste.
D. What were the results of John Deere's analysis of the waste?
EPA believes that John Deere's analytical characterization provides
a reasonable basis to grant John Deere's petition for an exclusion of
the [wastewater treatment sludge] Filter Cake. Furthermore, EPA
believes the data submitted in support of the petition show that the
sludge is non-hazardous. Analytical data for the wastewater treatment
sludge samples were used in the DRAS to develop delisting levels.
The data for the total concentration of COC in the Filter Cake are
as follows: milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) Barium--643; Copper--959;
Chromium--15,000; Hexavalent Chromium--13.6; Cyanide--1.92; Lead--291;
Mercury--0.635; Nickel--1,010; Vanadium--253; Zinc--3,390; Acetone--
9.13; and Methyl Ethyl Ketone--0.191. The data for the leachate
concentration of COC in the Filter Cake are as follows: milligrams per
liter (mg/l) Barium--.0272; Copper--0.442; Chromium--0.826; Cyanide--
<0.01; Lead--<0.05; Mercury--0.000702; Nickel--0.744; Vanadium--0.0164;
Zinc--0.403; Acetone--0.001; and Methyl Ethyl Ketone--0.001. Note that
the above levels represent the highest COC concentration result
reported. If the result was reported as ``non-detect'' (shown above by
a ``<'') the detection limit was used in the analysis. Hexavalent
chromium was analyzed with DRAS at milligrams per liter (mg/l) 0.0826
(one tenth of the chromium leachate value).
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 groundwater, surface water and air. We
evaluated John Deere's petitioned waste using the Agency's Delisting
Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) described in 65 FR 58015 (September 27,
2000), 65 FR 75637 (December 4, 2000), and 73 FR 28768 (May 19, 2008)
to predict the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous
constituents that may be released from the petitioned waste after
disposal and determined the potential impact of the disposal of John
Deere's petitioned waste on human health and the environment. 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 and Transformation Products (EPACMTP). From a release to
groundwater, the DRAS considers routes of exposure to a human receptor
of ingestion of contaminated groundwater, inhalation from groundwater
while showering and dermal contact from groundwater while bathing.
From a release to surface water by erosion of waste from an open
landfill into stormwater 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.
[[Page 49256]]
At a benchmark cancer risk of one in one hundred thousand (1 x
10-\5\) and a benchmark 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 1000 cubic yards disposed in a landfill for 20 years after
which time the landfill is closed. We used the maximum reported total
and TCLP leachate concentrations as inputs to estimate the constituent
concentrations in the groundwater, soil, surface water and air.
F. What did EPA conclude about John Deere's waste?
The maximum reported concentrations of the hazardous constituents
found in this waste are presented above in section D. The maximum
allowable total COC concentrations in the Filter Cake as determined by
the DRAS are as follows: milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) Barium--2.85 x
10\7\; Copper--5.34 x 10\6\; Chromium (III)--4.56 x 10\10\; Hexavalent
Chromium--1.36 x 10\4\; Cyanide--2.99 x 10\6\; Lead--1.09 x 10\7\;
Mercury--1.86 x 10\1\; Nickel--4.76 x 10\6\; Vanadium--1.52 x 10\8\;
Zinc--1.38 x 10\7\; Acetone--3.63 x 10\8\; and Methyl Ethyl Ketone--
1.45 x 10\9\. The maximum allowable leachate COC concentrations in the
Filter Cake as determined by the DRAS are as follows: milligrams per
liter (mg/l) Copper--1.78 x 10\2\; Hexavalent Chromium--1.38 x 10\1\;
Cyanide--2.27 x 10\1\; Lead--4.18; Nickel--9.78 x 10\1\; Vanadium--2.47
x 10\1\; Zinc--1.48 x 10\3\; Acetone--3.84 x 10\3\; and. The maximum
allowable leachate COC concentrations in the Filter Cake as determined
by TCLP are as follows: milligrams per liter (mg/l) Barium--100;
Chromium (total)--5; Mercury--2 x 10-\1\; and Methyl Ethyl
Ketone--200. The concentrations of all constituents in both the waste
and the leachate are below the allowable concentrations. We conclude
that John Deere's Filter Cake is not a substantial or potential hazard
to human health and the environment when disposed of in a Subtitle D
landfill.
We propose to grant an exclusion for the Filter Cake. If this
exclusion is finalized, John Deere must dispose of the Filter Cake in a
Subtitle D landfill permitted, licensed or otherwise authorized by a
state RCRA solid waste permit program, and will remain obligated to
verify that the waste meets the allowable concentrations set forth
here. John Deere must also continue to determine whether the Filter
Cake is identified in subpart C of 40 CFR part 261.
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 therefore a final rule granting John
Deere's petition is proposed to be effective immediately upon
publication in the Federal Register. Similarly, since John Deere is
already required to comply with RCRA Subtitle C for the management of
the petitioned waste, a final rule denying the petition would be
effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register as the
petitioned waste would remain status quo--a hazardous waste.
B. How will John Deere manage the waste if it is delisted?
If the petitioned waste is delisted, John Deere must dispose of it
in a subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or otherwise
authorized by a state to manage industrial waste.
C. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?
The petitioner, John Deere, must comply with the conditions which
will be in 40 CFR part 261, appendix IX, table 1. The text below gives
the rationale and details of those requirements.
(1) Delisting Levels: This paragraph provides the levels of
constituents for which John Deere must test the WWTP sludge, below
which these wastes would be considered non-hazardous. EPA selected the
set of constituents and levels specified in paragraph (1) of 40 CFR
part 261, appendix IX, table 1, (the exclusion language) based on
information in the petition, information from DRAS and variability of
the WWTP sludge composition. The proposed levels EPA compiled the
constituents list from the composition of the waste, descriptions of
John Deere's treatment process, previous test data provided for the
waste, and the respective health-based levels used in delisting
decision-making.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling: The purpose of this paragraph is to
ensure that John Deere manages and disposes of any Filter Cake that
contains hazardous levels of inorganic and organic constituents
according to Subtitle C of RCRA. Managing the Filter Cake as a
hazardous waste until initial verification testing is performed will
protect against improper handling of hazardous material. Unless and
until EPA concurs that the initial verification data collected under
paragraph (3) supports the data provided in the petition, the exclusion
will not cover the petitioned waste. The exclusion is effective upon
publication in the Federal Register but the disposal as non-hazardous
waste cannot begin until two quarters of verification sampling is
completed and an approval is obtained from EPA.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements: John Deere must implement a
verification testing program on the Filter Cake to assure that the
sludge does not exceed the maximum levels specified in paragraph (1) of
the exclusion language. The first part of the verification testing
program is the quarterly testing of representative samples of the
Filter Cake during the first year of waste generation (two quarters
prior to obtaining written EPA approval and two additional quarters).
The proposed testing would verify that John Deere operates a treatment
facility where the constituent concentrations of the Filter Cake do not
exhibit unacceptable temporal and spatial levels of toxic constituents.
John Deere would begin quarterly sampling 30 days after the final
exclusion as described in paragraph (3)(A) of the exclusion language.
Consequently this program will ensure that the sludge is evaluated in
terms of variation in constituent concentrations in the Filter Cake
over time. Following two consecutive quarters of sampling where the
levels of constituents do not exceed the levels in paragraph (1), John
Deere can then manage and dispose of the Filter Cake as non-hazardous
in accordance with all applicable solid waste regulations following EPA
approval. If EPA determines that the data collected under this
paragraph does not support the data provided in the petition, the
exclusion will not cover the generated Filter Cake. John Deere must
then prove through a new demonstration that its Filter Cake meets the
conditions of the exclusion.
The second part of the verification testing program is the annual
testing of representative samples of the Filter Cake, per paragraph
(3)(B) of the exclusion language. To confirm that the characteristics
of the waste do not
[[Page 49257]]
change significantly over time, John Deere must continue to analyze a
representative sample of the Filter Cake on an annual basis. Annual
testing requires analyzing the full list of constituents in paragraph
(1) of the exclusion language. If operating conditions change as
described in paragraph (4) of the exclusion language, John Deere must
reinstate all testing in paragraph (1) of the exclusion language. John
Deere must then prove through a new demonstration that its Filter Cake
meets the conditions of the exclusion. If the annual testing of the
Filter Cake does not meet the delisting requirements in paragraph (1),
John Deere must notify EPA according to the requirements in paragraph
(6) of the exclusion language. The facility must provide sampling
results that support the rationale that the delisting exclusion should
not be withdrawn.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: Paragraph (4) of the exclusion
language would allow John Deere the flexibility of modifying its
processes (for example, changes in equipment or operating conditions).
However, if significant changes to the manufacturing or treatment
process described in the petition, or the chemicals used in the
manufacturing or treatment process are made, then John Deere must prove
the that the modified process(es)/chemicals will not affect the
composition or type of Filter Cake generated and must request approval
from EPA. EPA will determine if these changes will result in additional
COCs. John Deere must manage Filter Cake generated during the new
process demonstration as hazardous waste until it has obtained written
approval from EPA and paragraph (3) of the exclusion language is
satisfied.
If the proposed exclusion is made final, it will apply only to a
maximum of 600 tons per calendar year of Filter Cake generated at John
Deere after successful verification testing. EPA would require John
Deere to file a new delisting petition if it generates waste volumes
greater than 600 tons per calendar year of Filter Cake. John Deere must
manage these greater volumes as hazardous waste unless and until EPA
grants a new exclusion.
EPA may review and approve changes in writing or alternatively may
require John Deere to file a new delisting petition under any of the
following circumstances:
(a) If it significantly alters the wastewater treatment process;
(b) If it significantly changes from the current manufacturing
process(es) described in the John Deere petition; or
(c) If it makes any changes that could affect the composition or
type of waste generated such that the changes would cause any of the
constituents in paragraph (1) of the exclusion language to potentially
be above the delisting levels or would introduce any new constituents
into the waste.
(5) Data Submittals and Recordkeeping: To provide appropriate
documentation that John Deere's Filter Cake is meeting the delisting
levels, John Deere must submit reports to EPA as specified in the
conditions, and must compile, summarize, and keep delisting records on-
site for a minimum of five years. It must keep all analytical data
obtained through paragraph (3) of the exclusion language including
quality control information for five years. Paragraph (5) of the
exclusion language requires that John Deere furnish the data upon
request for inspection by any employee or representative of EPA or the
State of Iowa.
(6) Reopener: The purpose of paragraph (6) of the exclusion
language is to require John Deere to disclose new or different
information related to a condition at the facility or disposal of the
Filter Cake, if it is pertinent to the delisting. This provision will
allow EPA to reevaluate the exclusion, if a source provides new or
additional information to EPA. EPA will evaluate the information on
which EPA based the decision to see if it is still correct, or if
circumstances have changed so that the information is no longer correct
or would cause EPA to deny the petition, if presented.
This provision expressly requires John Deere to report differing
site conditions or assumptions used in the petition in addition to
failure to meet the annual testing conditions within 10 days of
discovery. If EPA discovers such information itself or from a third
party, it can act on it as appropriate. The language being proposed is
similar to those provisions found in RCRA regulations governing no-
migration petitions at Sec. 268.6.
It is EPA's position that it has the authority under RCRA and the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et seq., to
reopen a delisting decision when it receives new information that calls
into question the assumptions underlying the delisting. EPA believes a
clear statement of its authority in delisting is merited in light of
EPA's experience. See the Federal Register notices regarding Reynolds
Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 (July 14, 1997) and 62 FR 63458 (December
1, 1997) where the delisted waste leached at greater concentrations
into the environment than the concentrations predicted when conducting
the TCLP, leading EPA to repeal the delisting. If an immediate threat
to human health and the environment presents itself, EPA will continue
to address these situations on a case-by-case basis. Where necessary,
EPA will make a good cause finding to justify emergency rulemaking. See
APA section 553(b).
(7) Notification Requirements: In order to adequately track wastes
that have been delisted, EPA is requiring that John Deere provide a
one-time written notification to any state regulatory agency through
which or to which the delisted waste is being transported. John Deere
must provide this notification 60 days before commencing this activity.
In addition to providing this notification, John Deere is advised to
verify with each state the status of EPA's delisting decision under
state law (see the discussion in Section V. for specifics).
D. What happens if John Deere violates the terms and conditions of the
exclusion?
If John Deere violates the terms and conditions established in the
exclusion, the Filter Cake would not be exempt from subtitle C since
this is a conditional exclusion, and thus the Filter Cake would be
subject to hazardous waste management requirements. EPA also could then
initiate procedures to withdraw the exclusion. Where there is an
immediate threat to human health and the environment, EPA will evaluate
the need for enforcement activities on a case-by-case basis. EPA
expects John Deere to conduct the appropriate waste analysis and comply
with the criteria explained above in paragraph (1) of the exclusion.
V. How would this action affect the 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). Thus, the delisting would be valid in
Iowa on the effective date of a final rule delisting the petitioned
waste. However, whether the wastes will be delisted in other States
which have been authorized to administer the RCRA program will vary
depending upon the authorization status of the States and
[[Page 49258]]
the particular requirements regarding delisted wastes in the various
States.
Some 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 section 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. The petitioner must 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 and
regulations affecting transport and disposal of the petitioned waste.
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 John Deere transports
the Federally excluded waste to or manages the waste in any state with
delisting authorization, John Deere must obtain a delisting
authorization from that state before it can manage the waste as non-
hazardous 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 proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'', (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule.
Similarly, because this rule will affect only a particular
facility, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for this
belief is that the Agency used DRAS, which considers health and safety
risks to children, to calculate the maximum allowable concentrations
for this rule. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3
of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'', (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary
steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential
litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report which includes a copy of the rule to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of
rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not
required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular applicability. 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 proposed 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: Section 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: August 7, 2014.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
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
0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
0
2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX to part 261 add the following waste stream
in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261[m x dash]Wastes Excluded Under
Sec. Sec. 260.20 and 260.22
[[Page 49259]]
Table 1--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
John Deere Des Moines Ankeny, IA............. Wastewater Treatment
Works of Deere & Sludge Filter Cake
Company. (WWTS Filter Cake)
(Hazardous Waste No.
F006/F019) generated
from combined onsite
wastewater treatment
at the Ankeny, IA,
facility wastewater
treatment plant at a
maximum annual rate
of 600 tons 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 WWTS
Filter Cake.
John Deere must
implement a testing
program that meets
the following
conditions for the
exclusion to be
valid:
1. Delisting Levels:
(A) The WWTS Filter
Cake shall not
exhibit any of the
``Characteristics of
Hazardous Waste in 40
CFR 261, Subpart C.
(B) All TCLP
leachable
concentrations (40
CFR 261.24(a)) 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.
(C) EPA SW-846 Method
1313 Extraction at pH
2.88, 7 and 13
concentration of
Chromium (hexavalent)
must not exceed (mg/
l) 0.087. (D) All
total concentrations
for the following
constituents must not
exceed the following
levels (mg/kg):
Antimony--103;
Arsenic--52; Barium--
965; Beryllium--21;
Cadmium--10; Chromium
(total)--22,500;
Cobalt--11; Copper--
1439; Lead--437;
Nickel--1,515;
Selenium--52; Silver--
26; Thallium--52;
Tin--68; Vanadium--
380; Zinc--5,085;
Mercury--1; Chromium
(hexavalent)--20;
Cyanide--3, Oil and
Grease--32,250;
Acetone--8; Methyl
Ethyl Ketone (MEK)--
0.3.
2. Waste Handling and
Holding: (A) John
Deere must manage as
hazardous all WWTS
Filter Cake 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
from EPA. (B) Levels
of constituents
measured in the
samples of the WWTS
Filter Cake 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, John Deere
can manage and
dispose of the non-
hazardous WWTS Filter
Cake 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, John Deere
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). John Deere 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:
John Deere must
perform sample
collection and
analyses in
accordance with the
Quality Assurance
Project Plan
submitted with the
``John Deere Des
Moines, Iowa,
Sampling and Analysis
Plan for Delisting of
F006 and F019 Filter
Cake, June 2012.''
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, 1313,
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 John
Deere 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, John Deere
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 WWTS Filter Cake
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
John Deere becomes
aware of any
exceedance. (iii)
Within thirty (30)
days after taking
each quarterly
sample, John Deere
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, John Deere
can manage and
dispose the non-
hazardous sludge
according to all
applicable solid
waste regulations.
(B) Annual Testing:
(i) If John Deere
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),
John Deere may begin
annual testing as
follows: John Deere
must test two
representative
composite samples of
the WWTS Filter Cake
(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)
John Deere 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 tons
disposed during the
calendar year.
[[Page 49260]]
4. Changes in
Operating Conditions:
If John Deere
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
WWTS Filter Cake
generated from the
new process as non-
hazardous unless and
until the WWTS Filter
Cake is shown to meet
the delisting levels
set in paragraph (1),
John Deere
demonstrates that no
new hazardous
constituents listed
in appendix VIII of
part 261 have been
introduced, and John
Deere 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
John Deere to file a
new delisting
petition.
5. Data Submittals and
Recordkeeping: John
Deere must submit the
information described
below. If John Deere
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). John
Deere must: (A)
Submit the data
obtained through
paragraph (3) to the
Chief, Waste
Remediation and
Permits Branch, US
EPA Region 7, 11201
Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa KS 66219,
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
WWTS Filter Cake
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: (A) If,
any time after
disposal of the
delisted waste, John
Deere 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
John Deere must
report such data, in
writing, to the
Chief, Waste
Remediation and
Permits Branch, US
EPA Region 7, 11201
Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa KS 66219
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, EPA
Region 7, 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 John Deere 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
John Deere with an
opportunity to
present information
as to why the
proposed Agency
action is not
necessary or to
suggest an
alternative action.
John Deere shall have
30 days from the date
of the Regional
Administrator's
notice to present the
information. (D) If
after 30 days John
Deere 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: John
Deere 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 into 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.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2014-19771 Filed 8-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
