Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, 32519-32527 [2017-14829]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 134 / Friday, July 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Public Law 104–4);
• does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not
have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations,
Incorporation by reference, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Dated: June 30, 2017.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2017–14732 Filed 7–13–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jul 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R06–RCRA–2017–0254; FRL–9964–
71–Region 6]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to grant a
petition submitted by Samsung Austin
Semiconductor (Samsung) to exclude
(or delist) the sludge generated from the
electroplating process from the lists of
hazardous wastes. EPA used the
Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS) Version 3.0.47 in the evaluation
of the impact of the petitioned waste on
human health and the environment.
DATES: We will accept comments until
August 14, 2017. We will stamp
comments received after the close of the
comment period as late. These late
comments may or may not be
considered in formulating a final
decision. Your requests for a hearing
must reach EPA by July 31, 2017. The
request must contain the information
prescribed in 40 CFR 260.20(d)
(hereinafter all CFR cites refer to 40 CFR
unless otherwise stated).
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06–
RCRA–2017–0254, at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32519
For
technical information regarding the
Samsung Austin Semiconductor
petition, contact Michelle Peace at 214–
665–7430 or by email at
peace.michelle@epa.gov.
Your requests for a hearing must
reach EPA by July 31, 2017. The request
must contain the information described
in § 260.20(d).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Samsung
submitted a petition under 40 CFR
260.20 and 260.22(a). Section 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.
EPA bases its proposed decision to
grant the petition on an evaluation of
waste-specific information provided by
the petitioner. This 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, EPA would conclude that
Samsung’s petitioned waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original
listing criteria. EPA would also
conclude that Samsung’s process
minimizes short-term and long-term
threats from the petitioned waste to
human health and the environment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Table of Contents
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 Samsung manage the waste if
it is delisted?
D. When would the proposed delisting
exclusion be finalized?
E. How would this action affect the states?
II. Background
A. What is the history of the delisting
program?
B. What is a delisting petition, and what
does it require of a petitioner?
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 wastes did Samsung petition EPA
to delist?
B. Who is Samsung and what process does
it use to generate the petitioned waste?
C. How did Samsung sample and analyze
the data in this petition?
D. What were the results of Samsung’s
sample analysis?
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of
delisting this waste?
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
32520
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 134 / Friday, July 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules
F. What did EPA conclude about
Samsung’s analysis?
G. What other factors did EPA consider in
its evaluation?
H. What is EPA’s evaluation of this
delisting petition?
IV. Next Steps
A. With what conditions must the
petitioner comply?
B. What happens if Samsung violates the
terms and conditions?
V. Public Comments
A. How can I as an interested party submit
comments?
B. How may I review the docket or obtain
copies of the proposed exclusions?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
A. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to approve the
delisting petition submitted by Samsung
to have the Copper filter cake excluded,
or delisted from the definition of a
hazardous waste. The Copper filter cake
is listed as F006, wastewater treatment
sludges from electroplating operations.
The basis of the listing is cadmium,
hexavalent chromium, nickel, and
cyanide (complexed).
B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this
delisting?
Samsung’s petition requests an
exclusion from the F006 waste listing
pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22.
Samsung does not believe that the
petitioned waste meets the criteria for
which EPA listed it. Samsung 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jul 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
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
Samsung is based on the information
submitted in support of this rule,
including descriptions of the wastes and
analytical data from the Austin, Texas
facility.
C. How will Samsung manage the waste
if it is delisted?
If the copper filter cake is delisted,
contingent upon approval of the
delisting petition, storage containers
with copper filter cake will be
transported to an authorized, solid
waste landfill (e.g., RCRA Subtitle D
landfill, commercial/industrial solid
waste landfill, etc.) for disposal. Any
plans for recycling must be addressed
through the Hazardous Waste Recycling
regulations.
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 USCA
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).
E. How would this action affect the
states?
Because EPA is issuing this exclusion
under the Federal RCRA delisting
program, only states subject to Federal
RCRA delisting provisions would be
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
affected. This would exclude states
which have received authorization from
EPA to make their own delisting
decisions.
EPA allows states to impose their own
non-RCRA regulatory requirements that
are more stringent than EPA’s, under
section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929.
These more stringent requirements may
include a provision that prohibits a
Federally issued exclusion from taking
effect in the state. Because a dual system
(that is, both Federal (RCRA) and state
(non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a
petitioner’s waste, EPA urges petitioners
to contact the state regulatory authority
to establish the status of their wastes
under the state law.
EPA has also authorized some states
(for example, Louisiana, Oklahoma,
Georgia, Illinois) to administer a RCRA
delisting program in place of the Federal
program, that is, to make state delisting
decisions. Therefore, this exclusion
does not apply in those authorized
states unless that state makes the rule
part of its authorized program. If
Samsung transports the petitioned waste
to or manages the waste in any state
with delisting authorization, Samsung
must obtain delisting authorization from
that state before it can manage the waste
as non-hazardous in the state.
II. Background
A. What is the history of the delisting
program?
EPA published an amended list of
hazardous wastes from non-specific and
specific sources on January 16, 1981, as
part of its final and interim final
regulations implementing section 3001
of RCRA. EPA has amended this list
several times and published it in 40 CFR
261.31 and 261.32.
EPA lists these wastes as hazardous
because: (1) The wastes 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), (2) the wastes meet the
criteria for listing contained in
§ 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3), or (b) the wastes
are mixed with or derived from the
treatment, storage or disposal of such
characteristic and listed wastes and
which therefore become hazardous
under § 261.3(a)(2)(iv) or (c)(2)(i),
known as the ‘‘mixture’’ or ‘‘derivedfrom’’ rules, respectively.
Individual waste streams may vary,
however, depending on raw materials,
industrial processes, and other factors.
Thus, while a waste described in these
regulations or resulting from the
operation of the mixture or derived-from
rules generally is hazardous, a specific
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 134 / Friday, July 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules
waste from an individual facility may
not be hazardous.
For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and
260.22 provide an exclusion procedure,
called delisting, which allows persons
to prove that EPA should not regulate a
specific waste from a particular
generating facility as a hazardous waste.
B. What is a delisting petition, and what
does it require of a petitioner?
A delisting petition is a request from
a facility to EPA or an authorized state
to exclude wastes from the list of
hazardous wastes. The facility petitions
EPA because it does not consider the
wastes hazardous under RCRA
regulations.
In a delisting petition, the petitioner
must show that wastes generated at a
particular facility do not meet any of the
criteria for which the waste was listed.
The criteria for which EPA lists a waste
are in part 261 and further explained in
the background documents for the listed
waste.
In addition, under 40 CFR 260.22, a
petitioner must prove that the waste
does not exhibit any of the hazardous
waste characteristics (that is,
ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and
toxicity) and present sufficient
information for EPA to decide whether
factors other than those for which the
waste was listed warrant retaining it as
a hazardous waste. (See part 261 and the
background documents for the listed
waste.)
Generators remain obligated under
RCRA to confirm whether their waste
remains non-hazardous based on the
hazardous waste characteristics even if
EPA has ‘‘delisted’’ the waste.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
C. What factors must EPA consider in
deciding whether to grant a delisting
petition?
Besides considering the criteria in 40
CFR 260.22(a) and § 3001(f) of RCRA, 42
U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background
documents for the listed wastes, EPA
must consider any factors (including
additional constituents) other than those
for which EPA listed the waste, if a
reasonable basis exists that these
additional factors could cause the waste
to be hazardous.
EPA must also consider as hazardous
waste mixtures containing listed
hazardous wastes and wastes derived
from treating, storing, or disposing of
listed hazardous waste. See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jul 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
§ 261.3(a)(2)(iii and iv) and (c)(2)(i),
called the ‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derivedfrom’’ rules, respectively. These wastes
are also eligible for exclusion and
remain hazardous wastes until
excluded. See 66 FR 27266 (May 16,
2001).
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What waste did Samsung petition
EPA to delist?
In November 2015, Samsung
petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists
of hazardous wastes contained in
§§ 261.31 and 261.32, filter cake (F006)
generated from its facility located in
Austin, Texas. The waste falls under the
classification of listed waste pursuant to
§§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, in its
petition, Samsung requested that EPA
grant a conditional exclusion for 750
cubic yards of F006 filter cake.
B. Who is Samsung and what process
does it use to generate the petitioned
waste?
Samsung Austin Semiconductor
(SAS) operates a semiconductor
manufacturing facility located at 12100
Samsung Blvd. in Austin, Texas. SAS
manufactures semiconductors used in
logic chips for various applications,
including cellular phones and tablet
PCs. The SAS facility consists of two
wafer manufacturing operations. The
Main Fab, Mod 1 area was constructed
in June 2007 as a 300 mm NANO Flash
Fab. The Fab that was constructed in
1998 was decommissioned and
subsequently upgraded to convert it
from a trailing-edge DRAM Fab to a
copper back end of the line (BEOL) Fab
for the support of the adjacent Main Fab
operations (CuFab). The integrated SAS
operations are capable of manufacturing
3X NANO technology and copper
interconnects. In addition, the Main
Fab, Mod 2 area was constructed in May
2011 to manufacture 45X
Nanotechnology for logic chips for
various applications.
Since 2007, SAS’s manufacturing
process has used copper during wafer
fabrication to enhance electron
migration and reduce the width of the
circuitry of the microprocessors. The
copper application is performed in a
copper metallization process, in which
copper is applied to the wafer in an
electroplating operation. Electric current
is applied to copper anodes in an acidic
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32521
bath to deposit a microscopic layer of
copper on selected portions of the
wafer. Following the electroplating
operation, wafers go through a second
bath prior to entering the etching step.
The etching step is performed to clean
the edges of the wafer. Silica slurry is
then used to flatten the surface of the
wafer. Wastewater from these processes
is treated in the copper wastewater
(CuWW) treatment system that is part of
the plant’s industrial wastewater
treatment (IWT) system. Sludge
generated in the CuWW treatment
system is collected in a tank that feeds
a plate and frame filter press. The
sludge that is processed in the filter
press generates a filter cake which falls
from the filter press into a roll-off for
storage onsite in a less than 90-day
waste storage unit. The filter cake is
transported off-site to a hazardous waste
landfill for disposal.
C. How did Samsung sample and
analyze the data in this petition?
To support its petition, Samsung
submitted: Historical information on
waste generation and management
practices; and analytical results from
eight samples for total and TCLP
concentrations of compounds of
concern (COC)s.
D. What were the results of Samsung’s
analysis?
EPA believes that the descriptions of
the Samsung analytical characterization
provide a reasonable basis to grant
Samsung’s petition for an exclusion of
the filter cake sludge. EPA believes the
data submitted in support of the petition
show the filter cake is non-hazardous.
Analytical data for the filter cake
samples were used in the DRAS to
develop delisting levels. The data
summaries for COCs are presented in
Table I. EPA has reviewed the sampling
procedures used by Samsung and has
determined that it satisfies EPA criteria
for collecting representative samples of
the variations in constituent
concentrations in the filter cake. In
addition, the data submitted in support
of the petition show that constituents in
Samsung’s waste are presently below
health-based levels used in the delisting
decision-making. EPA believes that
Samsung has successfully demonstrated
that the copper filter cake is nonhazardous.
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
32522
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 134 / Friday, July 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—ANALYTICAL RESULTS/MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATION
[Copper Filter Cake, Samsung Austin Semiconductor, Austin, Texas]
Maximum total
concentration
(mg/kg)
Constituent
Acetone ........................................................................................................................................
Arsenic .........................................................................................................................................
Barium ..........................................................................................................................................
Cadmium ......................................................................................................................................
Carbon disulfide ...........................................................................................................................
Chromium ....................................................................................................................................
Chromium(VI) (+6) .......................................................................................................................
Cobalt ...........................................................................................................................................
Copper .........................................................................................................................................
Lead .............................................................................................................................................
Nickel ...........................................................................................................................................
Selenium ......................................................................................................................................
Silver ............................................................................................................................................
Thallium .......................................................................................................................................
Tin ................................................................................................................................................
Toluene ........................................................................................................................................
Vanadium .....................................................................................................................................
Zinc ..............................................................................................................................................
0.0013
3.6
5.30
0.75
2.7
42
1.7
1.6
14600
6.3
25.7
1.4
0.95
1.7
7.6
2.5
25.8
43.0
Maximum
TCLP
concentration
(mg/L)
0.24
0.098
0.13
0.004
0.043
0.12
0.072
0.035
5.4
0.11
0.078
0.072
0.0012
ND
ND
ND
0.014
0.21
Maximum
TCLP
delisting level
(mg/L)
2070.0
1.66
100.0
0.362
224.75
5.0
5.0
1.36
97.1
2.45
53.8
1.0
5.0
0.1458
22.5
60.1
14.36
797
Notes: These levels represent the highest constituent concentration found in any one sample and does not necessarily represent the specific
level found in one sample.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of
delisting the waste?
For this delisting determination, EPA
used such information gathered to
identify plausible exposure routes (i.e.
groundwater, surface water, air) for
hazardous constituents present in the
petitioned waste. EPA determined that
disposal in a surface impoundment is
the most reasonable, worst-case disposal
scenario for Samsung’s petitioned
waste. EPA applied the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software (DRAS) described
in 65 FR 58015 (September 27, 2000)
and 65 FR 75637 (December 4, 2000), 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 Samsung’s petitioned waste
on human health and the environment.
A copy of this software can be found on
the world wide web at https://
www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/wptdiv/
hazardous/delisting/dras-software.html.
In assessing potential risks to
groundwater, EPA used the maximum
waste volumes and the maximum
reported extract concentrations as
inputs to the DRAS program to estimate
the constituent concentrations in the
groundwater at a hypothetical receptor
well down gradient from the disposal
site. Using the risk level (carcinogenic
risk of 10 5 and non-cancer hazard
index of 1.0), the DRAS program can
back-calculate the acceptable receptor
well concentrations (referred to as
compliance-point concentrations) using
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jul 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
standard risk assessment algorithms and
EPA health-based numbers. Using the
maximum compliance-point
concentrations and EPA’s Composite
Model for Underflow water Migration
with Transformation Products
(EPACMTP) fate and transport modeling
factors, the DRAS further backcalculates the maximum permissible
waste constituent concentrations not
expected to exceed the compliancepoint concentrations in groundwater.
EPA believes that the EPACMTP fate
and transport model represents a
reasonable worst-case scenario for
possible groundwater contamination
resulting from disposal of the petitioned
waste in a surface impoundment, and
that a reasonable worst-case scenario is
appropriate when evaluating whether a
waste should be relieved of the
protective management constraints of
RCRA Subtitle C. The use of some
reasonable worst-case scenarios resulted
in conservative values for the
compliance-point concentrations and
ensures that the waste, once removed
from hazardous waste regulation, will
not pose a significant threat to human
health or the environment.
The DRAS also uses the maximum
estimated waste volumes and the
maximum reported total concentrations
to predict possible risks associated with
releases of waste constituents through
surface pathways (e.g. volatilization
from the impoundment). As in the
above groundwater analyses, the DRAS
uses the risk level, the health-based data
and standard risk assessment and
exposure algorithms to predict
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
maximum compliance-point
concentrations of waste constituents at
a hypothetical point of exposure. Using
fate and transport equations, the DRAS
uses the maximum compliance-point
concentrations and back-calculates the
maximum allowable waste constituent
concentrations (or ‘‘delisting levels’’).
In most cases, because a delisted
waste is no longer subject to hazardous
waste control, EPA is generally unable
to predict, and does not presently
control, how a petitioner will manage a
waste after delisting. Therefore, EPA
currently believes that it is
inappropriate to consider extensive sitespecific factors when applying the fate
and transport model. EPA does control
the type of unit where the waste is
disposed. The waste must be disposed
in the type of unit the fate and transport
model evaluates.
The DRAS results which calculate the
maximum allowable concentration of
chemical constituents in the waste are
presented in Table I. Based on the
comparison of the DRAS and TCLP
Analyses results found in Table I, the
petitioned waste should be delisted
because no constituents of concern
tested are likely to be present or formed
as reaction products or by-products in
Samsung waste.
F. What did EPA conclude about
Samsung’s waste analysis?
EPA concluded, after reviewing
Samsung’s processes that no other
hazardous constituents of concern, other
than those for which tested, are likely to
be present or formed as reaction
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 134 / Friday, July 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules
waste is based on descriptions of the
treatment activities associated with the
petitioned waste and characterization of
the copper filter cake.
If EPA finalizes the proposed rule,
EPA will no longer regulate the
petitioned waste under parts 262
through 268 and the permitting
standards of part 270.
G. What other factors did EPA consider
in its evaluation?
During the evaluation of Samsung’s
petition, EPA also considered the
potential impact of the petitioned waste
via non-groundwater routes (i.e., air
emission and surface runoff). With
regard to airborne dispersion in
particular, EPA believes that exposure
to airborne contaminants from
Samsung’s petitioned waste is unlikely.
Therefore, no appreciable air releases
are likely from Samsung’s waste under
any likely disposal conditions. EPA
evaluated the potential hazards
resulting from the unlikely scenario of
airborne exposure to hazardous
constituents released from Samsung’s
waste in an open landfill. The results of
this worst-case analysis indicated that
there is no substantial present or
potential hazard to human health and
the environment from airborne exposure
to constituents from Samsung’s Copper
Filter cake.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
products or by-products in the waste. In
addition, on the basis of explanations
and analytical data provided by
Samsung, pursuant to § 260.22, EPA
concludes that the petitioned waste
does not exhibit any of the
characteristics of ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity. See
§§ 261.21, 261.22 and 261.23,
respectively.
A. With what conditions must the
petitioner comply?
The petitioner, Samsung, must
comply with the requirements in 40
CFR part 261, Appendix IX, Table 1.
The text below gives the rationale and
details of those requirements.
H. What is EPA’s evaluation of this
delisting petition?
The descriptions of Samsung’s
hazardous waste process and analytical
characterization provide a reasonable
basis for EPA to grant the exclusion. The
data submitted in support of the petition
show that constituents in the waste are
below the leachable concentrations (see
Table I). EPA believes that Samsung’s
Filter cake sludge will not impose any
threat to human health and the
environment.
Thus, EPA believes Samsung should
be granted an exclusion for the Filter
cake sludge. EPA believes the data
submitted in support of the petition
show Samsung’s Filter cake sludge is
non-hazardous. The data submitted in
support of the petition show that
constituents in Samsung’s waste is
presently below the compliance point
concentrations used in the delisting
decision and would not pose a
substantial hazard to the environment.
EPA believes that Samsung has
successfully demonstrated that the
Filter cake sludge is non-hazardous.
EPA therefore, proposes to grant an
exclusion to Samsung in Austin, Texas,
for the copper filter cake described in its
petition. EPA’s decision to exclude this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jul 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
IV. Next Steps
(1) Delisting Levels
This paragraph provides the levels of
constituents for which Samsung must
test the Copper filter cake, below which
these wastes would be considered nonhazardous. EPA selected the set of
inorganic and organic constituents
specified in paragraph (1) of 40 CFR part
261, appendix IX, table 1, (the exclusion
language) based on information in the
petition. EPA compiled the inorganic
and organic constituents list from the
composition of the waste, descriptions
of Samsung’s treatment process,
previous test data provided for the
waste, and the respective health-based
levels used in delisting decisionmaking. These delisting levels
correspond to the allowable levels
measured in the TCLP concentrations.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling
The purpose of this paragraph is to
ensure that Samsung manages and
disposes of any Copper Filter cake that
contains hazardous levels of inorganic
and organic constituents according to
Subtitle C of RCRA. Managing the
copper filter cake as a hazardous waste
until the verification testing is
performed will protect against improper
handling of hazardous material. If EPA
determines that the data collected under
this paragraph do not support the data
provided for 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 cannot
begin until the verification sampling is
completed.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements
Samsung must complete a rigorous
verification testing program on the filter
cake to assure that the solids do not
exceed the maximum levels specified in
paragraph (1) of the exclusion language.
This verification program will occur as
wastes are removed from the roll off box
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32523
and scheduled for disposal. The volume
of wastes removed from the roll off
boxes may not exceed 750 cubic yards
of sludge material annually. Any copper
filter cake waste in excess of 750 cubic
yards must be disposed as hazardous
wastes. If EPA determines that the data
collected under this paragraph do not
support the data provided for the
petition, the exclusion will not cover
the generated wastes. If the data from
the verification testing program
demonstrate that the Filter cake meet
the delisting levels, Samsung may
commence disposing of the copper filter
cake. EPA will notify Samsung in
writing, if and when it begins and ends
disposal of the copper filter cake.
(4) Data Submittals
To provide appropriate
documentation that Samsung’s Copper
filter cake meet the delisting levels,
Samsung must compile, summarize, and
keep delisting records on-site for a
minimum of five years. It should keep
all analytical data obtained through
paragraph (3) of the exclusion language
including quality control information
for five years. Paragraph (4) of the
exclusion language requires that
Samsung furnish these data upon
request for inspection by any employee
or representative of EPA or the State of
Texas.
If the proposed exclusion is made
final, it will apply only to 750 cubic
yards of Copper Filter cake generated at
the Samsung Austin Refinery after
successful verification testing. EPA
would require Samsung to file a new
delisting petition for waste generated in
excess of the 750 cubic yards and treat
the solids as hazardous waste.
Samsung must manage waste volumes
greater than as generated wet 750 cubic
yards of the Copper Filter cake as
hazardous until EPA grants a new
exclusion.
When this exclusion becomes final,
Samsung’s management of the wastes
covered by this petition would be
relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction, the
Copper Filter cake from Samsung will
be disposed of in an authorized, solid
waste landfill (e.g. RCRA Subtitle D
landfill, commercial/industrial solid
waste landfill, etc.).
(5) Reopener
The purpose of paragraph (6) of the
exclusion language is to require
Samsung to disclose new or different
information related to a condition at the
facility or disposal of the waste, if it is
pertinent to the delisting. Samsung must
also use this procedure, if the waste
sample in the annual testing fails to
meet the levels found in paragraph (1).
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
32524
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 134 / Friday, July 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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 Samsung 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.
EPA believes 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. EPA may 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 delistings is merited, in
light of EPA’s experience. See Reynolds
Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 and 62
FR 63458 where the delisted waste
leached at greater concentrations in the
environment than the concentrations
predicted when conducting the TCLP,
thus 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 § 553 (b).
(6) Notification Requirements
In order to adequately track wastes
that have been delisted, EPA is
requiring that Samsung provide a onetime notification to any state regulatory
agency through which or to which the
delisted waste is being carried. Samsung
must provide this notification sixty (60)
days before commencing this activity.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
B. What happens if Samsung violates
the terms and conditions?
If Samsung violates the terms and
conditions established in the exclusion,
EPA will start 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
Samsung to conduct the appropriate
waste analysis and comply with the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jul 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
criteria explained above in paragraph (1)
of the exclusion.
V. Public Comments
A. How can I as an interested party
submit comments?
EPA is requesting public comments
on this proposed decision. Please send
three copies of your comments. Send
two copies to Kishor Fruitwala, Section
Chief (6MM–RP), Multimedia Division,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202. Identify your
comments at the top with this regulatory
docket number: ‘‘EPA–R6–RCRA–2017–
0254, Samsung Austin Semiconductor
Copper Filter Cake Delisting.’’ You may
submit your comments electronically to
Michelle Peace at peace.michelle@
epa.gov.
You should submit requests for a
hearing to Kishor Fruitwala, Section
Chief (6MM–RP), Multimedia Division,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202.
B. How may I review the docket or
obtain copies of the proposed
exclusions?
You may review the RCRA regulatory
docket for this proposed rule at the
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
1200, Dallas, Texas 75202. It is available
for viewing in EPA Freedom of
Information Act Review Room from 9:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call
(214) 665–6444 for appointments. The
public may copy material from any
regulatory docket at no cost for the first
100 pages, and at fifteen cents per page
for additional copies. Docket materials
may be available either electronically in
https://www.regulations.gov and you
may also request the electronic files of
the docket which do not appear on
regulations.gov.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 134 / Friday, July 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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 an
authorized, solid waste landfill (e.g.
RCRA Subtitle D landfill, commercial/
industrial solid waste landfill, etc.).
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.
32525
Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous
waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f).
Dated: June 15, 2017.
Wren Stenger,
Director, Multimedia Division, Region 6.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
6922, 6924(y) and 6938.
2. In table 1 of appendix IX to part 261
add the entry ‘‘Samsung’’ in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
■
Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22
TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
Facility
Address
Waste description
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
Samsung .............................. Austin, TX ...........................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jul 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
*
*
*
*
Copper Filter Cake (EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers F006) generated at a maximum rate of as 750 cubic yards annually.
For the exclusion to be valid, Samsung must implement a verification testing program for each of the waste streams that meets the following Paragraphs:
(1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations for those constituents must not exceed the
maximum allowable concentrations in mg/l specified in this paragraph.
Copper Filter Cake. Leachable Concentrations (mg/l): Acetone—2070.0; Arsenic—
1.66; Barium—100.0; Cadmium—0.362; Carbon Disulfide—224.75; Chromium—
5.0; Chromium (VI)—5.0; Cobalt—1.36; Copper—97.1; Lead—2.45; Nickel—
53.8; Selenium—1.0; Silver—5.0; Thallium—0.01458; Tin—22.5; Toluene—60.1;
Vanadium—14.36; Zinc—797.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
(A) Waste classification as non-hazardous cannot begin until compliance with the
limits set in paragraph (1) for the Copper Filter cake is verified.
(B) If constituent levels in any sample and retest sample taken by Samsung exceed any of the delisting levels set in paragraph (1) for the Copper Filter cake,
Samsung must do the following:
(i) Notify EPA in accordance with paragraph (5) and
(ii) manage and dispose the Copper Filter cake as hazardous waste generated
under Subtitle C of RCRA.
(3) Testing Requirements:
Samsung must perform analytical testing by sampling and analyzing the Copper
Filter cake as follows:
(i) Collect a representative sample of the Copper Filter cake for analysis of all constituents listed in paragraph (1) prior to disposal.
(ii) The samples for the annual testing shall be a representative sample according
to appropriate methods. As applicable to the method-defined parameters of concern, analyses requiring the use of SW–846 methods incorporated by reference
in 40 CFR 260.11 must be used without substitution. As applicable, the SW–846
methods might include Methods 0010, 0011, 0020, 0023A, 0030, 0031, 0040,
0050, 0051, 0060, 0061, 1010A, 1020B, 1110A, 1310B, 1311, 1312, 1320,
1330A, 9010C, 9012B, 9040C, 9045D, 9060A, 9070A (uses EPA Method 1664,
Rev. A), 9071B, and 9095B. Methods must meet Performance Based Measurement System Criteria in which the Data Quality Objectives are to demonstrate
that samples of the Samsung Copper filter cake is representative for all constituents listed in paragraph (1).
(4) Data Submittals:
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
32526
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 134 / Friday, July 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Facility
Address
Waste description
Samsung must submit the information described below. If Samsung fails to submit
the required data within the specified time or maintain the required records onsite for the specified time, EPA, at its discretion, will consider this sufficient basis
to reopen the exclusion as described in paragraph (6). Samsung must:
(A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph 3 to the Section Chief, 6MM–RP,
Multimedia Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross
Ave., Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202, within the time specified. All supporting
data can be submitted on CD–ROM or comparable electronic media.
(B) Compile records of analytical data from paragraph (3), summarized, and maintained on-site for a minimum of five years.
(C) Furnish these records and data when either EPA or the State of Texas requests them for inspection.
(D) Send along with all data a signed copy of the following certification statement,
to attest to the truth and accuracy of the data submitted:
‘‘Under civil and criminal penalty of law for the making or submission of false or
fraudulent statements or representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions of
the Federal Code, which include, but may not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001 and
42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify that the information contained in or accompanying this
document is true, accurate and complete.
As to the (those) identified section(s) of this document for which I cannot personally
verify its (their) truth and accuracy, I certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility for the persons who, acting under my direct instructions,
made the verification that this information is true, accurate and complete.
If any of this information is determined by EPA in its sole discretion to be false, inaccurate or incomplete, and upon conveyance of this fact to the company, I recognize and agree that this exclusion of waste will be void as if it never had effect
or to the extent directed by EPA and that the company will be liable for any actions taken in contravention of the company’s RCRA and CERCLA obligations
premised upon the company’s reliance on the void exclusion.’’
(5) Reopener:
(A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste Samsung possesses or is otherwise made aware of any environmental data (including but not limited to
underflow water data or ground water monitoring data) or any other data relevant
to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent identified for the delisting
verification testing is at level higher than the delisting level allowed by the Division Director in granting the petition, then the facility must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or being made
aware of that data.
(B) If either the verification testing (and retest, if applicable) of the waste does not
meet the delisting requirements in paragraph 1, Samsung must report the data,
in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or being
made aware of that data.
(C) If Samsung fails to submit the information described in paragraphs (5),(6)(A) or
(6)(B) or if any other information is received from any source, the Division Director will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information
requires EPA action to protect human health and/or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment.
(D) If the Division Director determines that the reported information requires action
by EPA, the Division Director will notify the facility in writing of the actions the Division Director believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing the facility with an opportunity to present information as to why
the proposed EPA action is not necessary. The facility shall have 10 days from
receipt of the Division Director’s notice to present such information.
(E) Following the receipt of information from the facility described in paragraph
(6)(D) or (if no information is presented under paragraph (6)(D)) the initial receipt
of information described in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B), the Division Director
will issue a final written determination describing EPA actions that are necessary
to protect human health and/or the environment. Any required action described in
the Division Director’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless
the Division Director provides otherwise.
(6) Notification Requirements:
Samsung must do the following before transporting the delisted waste. Failure to
provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting petition and a possible revocation of the decision.
(A) Provide a one-time written notification to any state Regulatory Agency to which
or through which it will transport the delisted waste described above for disposal,
60 days before beginning such activities.
(B) For onsite disposal, a notice should be submitted to the State to notify the
State that disposal of the delisted materials has begun.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jul 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
32527
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 134 / Friday, July 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
(C) Update one-time written notification, if it ships the delisted waste into a different
disposal facility.
(D) Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting exclusion and a possible revocation of the decision.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2017–14829 Filed 7–13–17; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jul 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
*
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 134 (Friday, July 14, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32519-32527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14829]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0254; FRL-9964-71-Region 6]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a petition submitted by Samsung
Austin Semiconductor (Samsung) to exclude (or delist) the sludge
generated from the electroplating process from the lists of hazardous
wastes. EPA used the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) Version
3.0.47 in the evaluation of the impact of the petitioned waste on human
health and the environment.
DATES: We will accept comments until August 14, 2017. We will stamp
comments received after the close of the comment period as late. These
late comments may or may not be considered in formulating a final
decision. Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by July 31, 2017.
The request must contain the information prescribed in 40 CFR 260.20(d)
(hereinafter all CFR cites refer to 40 CFR unless otherwise stated).
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
RCRA-2017-0254, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information regarding
the Samsung Austin Semiconductor petition, contact Michelle Peace at
214-665-7430 or by email at peace.michelle@epa.gov.
Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by July 31, 2017. The
request must contain the information described in Sec. 260.20(d).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Samsung submitted a petition under 40 CFR
260.20 and 260.22(a). Section 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.
EPA bases its proposed decision to grant the petition on an
evaluation of waste-specific information provided by the petitioner.
This 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, EPA would conclude that Samsung's petitioned waste is
non-hazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. EPA would
also conclude that Samsung's process minimizes short-term and long-term
threats from the petitioned waste to human health and the environment.
Table of Contents
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 Samsung manage the waste if it is delisted?
D. When would the proposed delisting exclusion be finalized?
E. How would this action affect the states?
II. Background
A. What is the history of the delisting program?
B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a
petitioner?
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 wastes did Samsung petition EPA to delist?
B. Who is Samsung and what process does it use to generate the
petitioned waste?
C. How did Samsung sample and analyze the data in this petition?
D. What were the results of Samsung's sample analysis?
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
[[Page 32520]]
F. What did EPA conclude about Samsung's analysis?
G. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
H. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
IV. Next Steps
A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?
B. What happens if Samsung violates the terms and conditions?
V. Public Comments
A. How can I as an interested party submit comments?
B. How may I review the docket or obtain copies of the proposed
exclusions?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to approve the delisting petition submitted by
Samsung to have the Copper filter cake excluded, or delisted from the
definition of a hazardous waste. The Copper filter cake is listed as
F006, wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations. The
basis of the listing is cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and
cyanide (complexed).
B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this delisting?
Samsung's petition requests an exclusion from the F006 waste
listing pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. Samsung does not believe
that the petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA listed it.
Samsung also believes no additional constituents or factors could cause
the waste to be hazardous. EPA's review of this petition included
consideration of the original listing criteria and the additional
factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA). See section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR
260.22 (d)(1)-(4)(hereinafter all sectional references are to 40 CFR
unless otherwise indicated). In making the initial delisting
determination, EPA evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing
criteria and factors cited in Sec. Sec. 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based
on this review, EPA agrees with the petitioner that the waste is non-
hazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. If EPA had
found, based on this review, that the waste remained hazardous based on
the factors for which the waste was originally listed, EPA would have
proposed to deny the petition. EPA evaluated the waste with respect to
other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis
to believe that such additional factors could cause the waste to be
hazardous. EPA considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the
concentration of the constituents in the waste, their tendency to
migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once
released from the waste, plausible and specific types of management of
the petitioned waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste
variability. EPA believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the
listing criteria and thus should not be a listed waste. EPA's proposed
decision to delist waste from Samsung is based on the information
submitted in support of this rule, including descriptions of the wastes
and analytical data from the Austin, Texas facility.
C. How will Samsung manage the waste if it is delisted?
If the copper filter cake is delisted, contingent upon approval of
the delisting petition, storage containers with copper filter cake will
be transported to an authorized, solid waste landfill (e.g., RCRA
Subtitle D landfill, commercial/industrial solid waste landfill, etc.)
for disposal. Any plans for recycling must be addressed through the
Hazardous Waste Recycling regulations.
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 USCA 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).
E. How would this action affect the states?
Because EPA is issuing this exclusion under the Federal RCRA
delisting program, only states subject to Federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This would exclude states which have
received authorization from EPA to make their own delisting decisions.
EPA allows states to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory
requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929. These more stringent requirements may include a
provision that prohibits a Federally issued exclusion from taking
effect in the state. Because a dual system (that is, both Federal
(RCRA) and state (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's
waste, EPA urges petitioners to contact the state regulatory authority
to establish the status of their wastes under the state law.
EPA has also authorized some states (for example, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, Georgia, Illinois) to administer a RCRA delisting program in
place of the Federal program, that is, to make state delisting
decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized
states unless that state makes the rule part of its authorized program.
If Samsung transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in
any state with delisting authorization, Samsung must obtain delisting
authorization from that state before it can manage the waste as non-
hazardous in the state.
II. Background
A. What is the history of the delisting program?
EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from non-specific
and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its final and
interim final regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA. EPA has
amended this list several times and published it in 40 CFR 261.31 and
261.32.
EPA lists these wastes as hazardous because: (1) The wastes
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), (2) the wastes
meet the criteria for listing contained in Sec. 261.11(a)(2) or
(a)(3), or (b) the wastes are mixed with or derived from the treatment,
storage or disposal of such characteristic and listed wastes and which
therefore become hazardous under Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iv) or (c)(2)(i),
known as the ``mixture'' or ``derived-from'' rules, respectively.
Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste
described in these regulations or resulting from the operation of the
mixture or derived-from rules generally is hazardous, a specific
[[Page 32521]]
waste from an individual facility may not be hazardous.
For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion
procedure, called delisting, which allows persons to prove that EPA
should not regulate a specific waste from a particular generating
facility as a hazardous waste.
B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a
petitioner?
A delisting petition is a request from a facility to EPA or an
authorized state to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes.
The facility petitions EPA because it does not consider the wastes
hazardous under RCRA regulations.
In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that wastes
generated at a particular facility do not meet any of the criteria for
which the waste was listed. The criteria for which EPA lists a waste
are in part 261 and further explained in the background documents for
the listed waste.
In addition, under 40 CFR 260.22, a petitioner must prove that the
waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (that
is, ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and present
sufficient information for EPA to decide whether factors other than
those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a
hazardous waste. (See part 261 and the background documents for the
listed waste.)
Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm whether their
waste remains non-hazardous based on the hazardous waste
characteristics even if EPA has ``delisted'' the waste.
C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a
delisting petition?
Besides considering the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a) and Sec.
3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background documents for
the listed wastes, EPA must consider any factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which EPA listed the waste, if a
reasonable basis exists that these additional factors could cause the
waste to be hazardous.
EPA must also consider as hazardous waste mixtures containing
listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or
disposing of listed hazardous waste. See Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iii and iv)
and (c)(2)(i), called the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively. These wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain
hazardous wastes until excluded. See 66 FR 27266 (May 16, 2001).
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What waste did Samsung petition EPA to delist?
In November 2015, Samsung petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists
of hazardous wastes contained in Sec. Sec. 261.31 and 261.32, filter
cake (F006) generated from its facility located in Austin, Texas. The
waste falls under the classification of listed waste pursuant to
Sec. Sec. 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, in its petition, Samsung
requested that EPA grant a conditional exclusion for 750 cubic yards of
F006 filter cake.
B. Who is Samsung and what process does it use to generate the
petitioned waste?
Samsung Austin Semiconductor (SAS) operates a semiconductor
manufacturing facility located at 12100 Samsung Blvd. in Austin, Texas.
SAS manufactures semiconductors used in logic chips for various
applications, including cellular phones and tablet PCs. The SAS
facility consists of two wafer manufacturing operations. The Main Fab,
Mod 1 area was constructed in June 2007 as a 300 mm NANO Flash Fab. The
Fab that was constructed in 1998 was decommissioned and subsequently
upgraded to convert it from a trailing-edge DRAM Fab to a copper back
end of the line (BEOL) Fab for the support of the adjacent Main Fab
operations (CuFab). The integrated SAS operations are capable of
manufacturing 3X NANO technology and copper interconnects. In addition,
the Main Fab, Mod 2 area was constructed in May 2011 to manufacture 45X
Nanotechnology for logic chips for various applications.
Since 2007, SAS's manufacturing process has used copper during
wafer fabrication to enhance electron migration and reduce the width of
the circuitry of the microprocessors. The copper application is
performed in a copper metallization process, in which copper is applied
to the wafer in an electroplating operation. Electric current is
applied to copper anodes in an acidic bath to deposit a microscopic
layer of copper on selected portions of the wafer. Following the
electroplating operation, wafers go through a second bath prior to
entering the etching step. The etching step is performed to clean the
edges of the wafer. Silica slurry is then used to flatten the surface
of the wafer. Wastewater from these processes is treated in the copper
wastewater (CuWW) treatment system that is part of the plant's
industrial wastewater treatment (IWT) system. Sludge generated in the
CuWW treatment system is collected in a tank that feeds a plate and
frame filter press. The sludge that is processed in the filter press
generates a filter cake which falls from the filter press into a roll-
off for storage onsite in a less than 90-day waste storage unit. The
filter cake is transported off-site to a hazardous waste landfill for
disposal.
C. How did Samsung sample and analyze the data in this petition?
To support its petition, Samsung submitted: Historical information
on waste generation and management practices; and analytical results
from eight samples for total and TCLP concentrations of compounds of
concern (COC)s.
D. What were the results of Samsung's analysis?
EPA believes that the descriptions of the Samsung analytical
characterization provide a reasonable basis to grant Samsung's petition
for an exclusion of the filter cake sludge. EPA believes the data
submitted in support of the petition show the filter cake is non-
hazardous. Analytical data for the filter cake samples were used in the
DRAS to develop delisting levels. The data summaries for COCs are
presented in Table I. EPA has reviewed the sampling procedures used by
Samsung and has determined that it satisfies EPA criteria for
collecting representative samples of the variations in constituent
concentrations in the filter cake. In addition, the data submitted in
support of the petition show that constituents in Samsung's waste are
presently below health-based levels used in the delisting decision-
making. EPA believes that Samsung has successfully demonstrated that
the copper filter cake is non-hazardous.
[[Page 32522]]
Table 1--Analytical Results/Maximum Allowable Delisting Concentration
[Copper Filter Cake, Samsung Austin Semiconductor, Austin, Texas]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum total Maximum TCLP Maximum TCLP
Constituent concentration concentration delisting
(mg/kg) (mg/L) level (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone......................................................... 0.0013 0.24 2070.0
Arsenic......................................................... 3.6 0.098 1.66
Barium.......................................................... 5.30 0.13 100.0
Cadmium......................................................... 0.75 0.004 0.362
Carbon disulfide................................................ 2.7 0.043 224.75
Chromium........................................................ 42 0.12 5.0
Chromium(VI) (+6)............................................... 1.7 0.072 5.0
Cobalt.......................................................... 1.6 0.035 1.36
Copper.......................................................... 14600 5.4 97.1
Lead............................................................ 6.3 0.11 2.45
Nickel.......................................................... 25.7 0.078 53.8
Selenium........................................................ 1.4 0.072 1.0
Silver.......................................................... 0.95 0.0012 5.0
Thallium........................................................ 1.7 ND 0.1458
Tin............................................................. 7.6 ND 22.5
Toluene......................................................... 2.5 ND 60.1
Vanadium........................................................ 25.8 0.014 14.36
Zinc............................................................ 43.0 0.21 797
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: These levels represent the highest constituent concentration found in any one sample and does not
necessarily represent the specific level found in one sample.
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting the waste?
For this delisting determination, EPA used such information
gathered to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e. groundwater,
surface water, air) for hazardous constituents present in the
petitioned waste. EPA determined that disposal in a surface impoundment
is the most reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for Samsung's
petitioned waste. EPA applied the Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS) described in 65 FR 58015 (September 27, 2000) and 65 FR 75637
(December 4, 2000), 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
Samsung's petitioned waste on human health and the environment. A copy
of this software can be found on the world wide web at https://www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/wptdiv/hazardous/delisting/dras-software.html. In
assessing potential risks to groundwater, EPA used the maximum waste
volumes and the maximum reported extract concentrations as inputs to
the DRAS program to estimate the constituent concentrations in the
groundwater at a hypothetical receptor well down gradient from the
disposal site. Using the risk level (carcinogenic risk of 10\-5\ and
non-cancer hazard index of 1.0), the DRAS program can back-calculate
the acceptable receptor well concentrations (referred to as compliance-
point concentrations) using standard risk assessment algorithms and EPA
health-based numbers. Using the maximum compliance-point concentrations
and EPA's Composite Model for Underflow water Migration with
Transformation Products (EPACMTP) fate and transport modeling factors,
the DRAS further back-calculates the maximum permissible waste
constituent concentrations not expected to exceed the compliance-point
concentrations in groundwater.
EPA believes that the EPACMTP fate and transport model represents a
reasonable worst-case scenario for possible groundwater contamination
resulting from disposal of the petitioned waste in a surface
impoundment, and that a reasonable worst-case scenario is appropriate
when evaluating whether a waste should be relieved of the protective
management constraints of RCRA Subtitle C. The use of some reasonable
worst-case scenarios resulted in conservative values for the
compliance-point concentrations and ensures that the waste, once
removed from hazardous waste regulation, will not pose a significant
threat to human health or the environment.
The DRAS also uses the maximum estimated waste volumes and the
maximum reported total concentrations to predict possible risks
associated with releases of waste constituents through surface pathways
(e.g. volatilization from the impoundment). As in the above groundwater
analyses, the DRAS uses the risk level, the health-based data and
standard risk assessment and exposure algorithms to predict maximum
compliance-point concentrations of waste constituents at a hypothetical
point of exposure. Using fate and transport equations, the DRAS uses
the maximum compliance-point concentrations and back-calculates the
maximum allowable waste constituent concentrations (or ``delisting
levels'').
In most cases, because a delisted waste is no longer subject to
hazardous waste control, EPA is generally unable to predict, and does
not presently control, how a petitioner will manage a waste after
delisting. Therefore, EPA currently believes that it is inappropriate
to consider extensive site-specific factors when applying the fate and
transport model. EPA does control the type of unit where the waste is
disposed. The waste must be disposed in the type of unit the fate and
transport model evaluates.
The DRAS results which calculate the maximum allowable
concentration of chemical constituents in the waste are presented in
Table I. Based on the comparison of the DRAS and TCLP Analyses results
found in Table I, the petitioned waste should be delisted because no
constituents of concern tested are likely to be present or formed as
reaction products or by-products in Samsung waste.
F. What did EPA conclude about Samsung's waste analysis?
EPA concluded, after reviewing Samsung's processes that no other
hazardous constituents of concern, other than those for which tested,
are likely to be present or formed as reaction
[[Page 32523]]
products or by-products in the waste. In addition, on the basis of
explanations and analytical data provided by Samsung, pursuant to Sec.
260.22, EPA concludes that the petitioned waste does not exhibit any of
the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or
toxicity. See Sec. Sec. 261.21, 261.22 and 261.23, respectively.
G. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
During the evaluation of Samsung's petition, EPA also considered
the potential impact of the petitioned waste via non-groundwater routes
(i.e., air emission and surface runoff). With regard to airborne
dispersion in particular, EPA believes that exposure to airborne
contaminants from Samsung's petitioned waste is unlikely. Therefore, no
appreciable air releases are likely from Samsung's waste under any
likely disposal conditions. EPA evaluated the potential hazards
resulting from the unlikely scenario of airborne exposure to hazardous
constituents released from Samsung's waste in an open landfill. The
results of this worst-case analysis indicated that there is no
substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the
environment from airborne exposure to constituents from Samsung's
Copper Filter cake.
H. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
The descriptions of Samsung's hazardous waste process and
analytical characterization provide a reasonable basis for EPA to grant
the exclusion. The data submitted in support of the petition show that
constituents in the waste are below the leachable concentrations (see
Table I). EPA believes that Samsung's Filter cake sludge will not
impose any threat to human health and the environment.
Thus, EPA believes Samsung should be granted an exclusion for the
Filter cake sludge. EPA believes the data submitted in support of the
petition show Samsung's Filter cake sludge is non-hazardous. The data
submitted in support of the petition show that constituents in
Samsung's waste is presently below the compliance point concentrations
used in the delisting decision and would not pose a substantial hazard
to the environment. EPA believes that Samsung has successfully
demonstrated that the Filter cake sludge is non-hazardous.
EPA therefore, proposes to grant an exclusion to Samsung in Austin,
Texas, for the copper filter cake described in its petition. EPA's
decision to exclude this waste is based on descriptions of the
treatment activities associated with the petitioned waste and
characterization of the copper filter cake.
If EPA finalizes the proposed rule, EPA will no longer regulate the
petitioned waste under parts 262 through 268 and the permitting
standards of part 270.
IV. Next Steps
A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?
The petitioner, Samsung, must comply with the requirements 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
Samsung must test the Copper filter cake, below which these wastes
would be considered non-hazardous. EPA selected the set of inorganic
and organic constituents specified in paragraph (1) of 40 CFR part 261,
appendix IX, table 1, (the exclusion language) based on information in
the petition. EPA compiled the inorganic and organic constituents list
from the composition of the waste, descriptions of Samsung's treatment
process, previous test data provided for the waste, and the respective
health-based levels used in delisting decision-making. These delisting
levels correspond to the allowable levels measured in the TCLP
concentrations.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling
The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that Samsung manages and
disposes of any Copper Filter cake that contains hazardous levels of
inorganic and organic constituents according to Subtitle C of RCRA.
Managing the copper filter cake as a hazardous waste until the
verification testing is performed will protect against improper
handling of hazardous material. If EPA determines that the data
collected under this paragraph do not support the data provided for 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 cannot begin until the verification sampling
is completed.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements
Samsung must complete a rigorous verification testing program on
the filter cake to assure that the solids do not exceed the maximum
levels specified in paragraph (1) of the exclusion language. This
verification program will occur as wastes are removed from the roll off
box and scheduled for disposal. The volume of wastes removed from the
roll off boxes may not exceed 750 cubic yards of sludge material
annually. Any copper filter cake waste in excess of 750 cubic yards
must be disposed as hazardous wastes. If EPA determines that the data
collected under this paragraph do not support the data provided for the
petition, the exclusion will not cover the generated wastes. If the
data from the verification testing program demonstrate that the Filter
cake meet the delisting levels, Samsung may commence disposing of the
copper filter cake. EPA will notify Samsung in writing, if and when it
begins and ends disposal of the copper filter cake.
(4) Data Submittals
To provide appropriate documentation that Samsung's Copper filter
cake meet the delisting levels, Samsung must compile, summarize, and
keep delisting records on-site for a minimum of five years. It should
keep all analytical data obtained through paragraph (3) of the
exclusion language including quality control information for five
years. Paragraph (4) of the exclusion language requires that Samsung
furnish these data upon request for inspection by any employee or
representative of EPA or the State of Texas.
If the proposed exclusion is made final, it will apply only to 750
cubic yards of Copper Filter cake generated at the Samsung Austin
Refinery after successful verification testing. EPA would require
Samsung to file a new delisting petition for waste generated in excess
of the 750 cubic yards and treat the solids as hazardous waste.
Samsung must manage waste volumes greater than as generated wet 750
cubic yards of the Copper Filter cake as hazardous until EPA grants a
new exclusion.
When this exclusion becomes final, Samsung's management of the
wastes covered by this petition would be relieved from Subtitle C
jurisdiction, the Copper Filter cake from Samsung will be disposed of
in an authorized, solid waste landfill (e.g. RCRA Subtitle D landfill,
commercial/industrial solid waste landfill, etc.).
(5) Reopener
The purpose of paragraph (6) of the exclusion language is to
require Samsung to disclose new or different information related to a
condition at the facility or disposal of the waste, if it is pertinent
to the delisting. Samsung must also use this procedure, if the waste
sample in the annual testing fails to meet the levels found in
paragraph (1).
[[Page 32524]]
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 Samsung 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.
EPA believes 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. EPA may 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 delistings is
merited, in light of EPA's experience. See Reynolds Metals Company at
62 FR 37694 and 62 FR 63458 where the delisted waste leached at greater
concentrations in the environment than the concentrations predicted
when conducting the TCLP, thus 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 Sec. 553 (b).
(6) Notification Requirements
In order to adequately track wastes that have been delisted, EPA is
requiring that Samsung provide a one-time notification to any state
regulatory agency through which or to which the delisted waste is being
carried. Samsung must provide this notification sixty (60) days before
commencing this activity.
B. What happens if Samsung violates the terms and conditions?
If Samsung violates the terms and conditions established in the
exclusion, EPA will start 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 Samsung to conduct the appropriate waste analysis
and comply with the criteria explained above in paragraph (1) of the
exclusion.
V. Public Comments
A. How can I as an interested party submit comments?
EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision. Please
send three copies of your comments. Send two copies to Kishor
Fruitwala, Section Chief (6MM-RP), Multimedia Division, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas
75202. Identify your comments at the top with this regulatory docket
number: ``EPA-R6-RCRA-2017-0254, Samsung Austin Semiconductor Copper
Filter Cake Delisting.'' You may submit your comments electronically to
Michelle Peace at peace.michelle@epa.gov.
You should submit requests for a hearing to Kishor Fruitwala,
Section Chief (6MM-RP), Multimedia Division, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202.
B. How may I review the docket or obtain copies of the proposed
exclusions?
You may review the RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule at
the Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
1200, Dallas, Texas 75202. It is available for viewing in EPA Freedom
of Information Act Review Room from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for
appointments. The public may copy material from any regulatory docket
at no cost for the first 100 pages, and at fifteen cents per page for
additional copies. Docket materials may be available either
electronically in https://www.regulations.gov and you may also request
the electronic files of the docket which do not appear on
regulations.gov.
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
[[Page 32525]]
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 an authorized, solid waste landfill
(e.g. RCRA Subtitle D landfill, commercial/industrial solid waste
landfill, etc.). 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.
Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: June 15, 2017.
Wren Stenger,
Director, Multimedia Division, Region 6.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and
6938.
0
2. In table 1 of appendix IX to part 261 add the entry ``Samsung'' in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 1--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Samsung................................. Austin, TX................. Copper Filter Cake (EPA Hazardous Waste
Numbers F006) generated at a maximum
rate of as 750 cubic yards annually.
For the exclusion to be valid, Samsung
must implement a verification testing
program for each of the waste streams
that meets the following Paragraphs:
(1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations
for those constituents must not exceed
the maximum allowable concentrations in
mg/l specified in this paragraph.
Copper Filter Cake. Leachable
Concentrations (mg/l): Acetone--2070.0;
Arsenic--1.66; Barium--100.0; Cadmium--
0.362; Carbon Disulfide--224.75;
Chromium--5.0; Chromium (VI)--5.0;
Cobalt--1.36; Copper--97.1; Lead--2.45;
Nickel--53.8; Selenium--1.0; Silver--
5.0; Thallium--0.01458; Tin--22.5;
Toluene--60.1; Vanadium--14.36; Zinc--
797.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
(A) Waste classification as non-hazardous
cannot begin until compliance with the
limits set in paragraph (1) for the
Copper Filter cake is verified.
(B) If constituent levels in any sample
and retest sample taken by Samsung
exceed any of the delisting levels set
in paragraph (1) for the Copper Filter
cake, Samsung must do the following:
(i) Notify EPA in accordance with
paragraph (5) and
(ii) manage and dispose the Copper Filter
cake as hazardous waste generated under
Subtitle C of RCRA.
(3) Testing Requirements:
Samsung must perform analytical testing
by sampling and analyzing the Copper
Filter cake as follows:
(i) Collect a representative sample of
the Copper Filter cake for analysis of
all constituents listed in paragraph (1)
prior to disposal.
(ii) The samples for the annual testing
shall be a representative sample
according to appropriate methods. As
applicable to the method-defined
parameters of concern, analyses
requiring the use of SW-846 methods
incorporated by reference in 40 CFR
260.11 must be used without
substitution. As applicable, the SW-846
methods might include Methods 0010,
0011, 0020, 0023A, 0030, 0031, 0040,
0050, 0051, 0060, 0061, 1010A, 1020B,
1110A, 1310B, 1311, 1312, 1320, 1330A,
9010C, 9012B, 9040C, 9045D, 9060A, 9070A
(uses EPA Method 1664, Rev. A), 9071B,
and 9095B. Methods must meet Performance
Based Measurement System Criteria in
which the Data Quality Objectives are to
demonstrate that samples of the Samsung
Copper filter cake is representative for
all constituents listed in paragraph
(1).
(4) Data Submittals:
[[Page 32526]]
Samsung must submit the information
described below. If Samsung 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).
Samsung must:
(A) Submit the data obtained through
paragraph 3 to the Section Chief, 6MM-
RP, Multimedia Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region
6, 1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200, Dallas,
Texas 75202, within the time specified.
All supporting data can be submitted on
CD-ROM or comparable electronic media.
(B) Compile records of analytical data
from paragraph (3), summarized, and
maintained on-site for a minimum of five
years.
(C) Furnish these records and data when
either EPA or the State of Texas
requests them for inspection.
(D) Send along with all data a signed
copy of the following certification
statement, to attest to the truth and
accuracy of the data submitted:
``Under civil and criminal penalty of law
for the making or submission of false or
fraudulent statements or representations
(pursuant to the applicable provisions
of the Federal Code, which include, but
may not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001
and 42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify that the
information contained in or accompanying
this document is true, accurate and
complete.
As to the (those) identified section(s)
of this document for which I cannot
personally verify its (their) truth and
accuracy, I certify as the company
official having supervisory
responsibility for the persons who,
acting under my direct instructions,
made the verification that this
information is true, accurate and
complete.
If any of this information is determined
by EPA in its sole discretion to be
false, inaccurate or incomplete, and
upon conveyance of this fact to the
company, I recognize and agree that this
exclusion of waste will be void as if it
never had effect or to the extent
directed by EPA and that the company
will be liable for any actions taken in
contravention of the company's RCRA and
CERCLA obligations premised upon the
company's reliance on the void
exclusion.''
(5) Reopener:
(A) If, anytime after disposal of the
delisted waste Samsung possesses or is
otherwise made aware of any
environmental data (including but not
limited to underflow water data or
ground water monitoring data) or any
other data relevant to the delisted
waste indicating that any constituent
identified for the delisting
verification testing is at level higher
than the delisting level allowed by the
Division Director in granting the
petition, then the facility must report
the data, in writing, to the Division
Director within 10 days of first
possessing or being made aware of that
data.
(B) If either the verification testing
(and retest, if applicable) of the waste
does not meet the delisting requirements
in paragraph 1, Samsung must report the
data, in writing, to the Division
Director within 10 days of first
possessing or being made aware of that
data.
(C) If Samsung fails to submit the
information described in paragraphs
(5),(6)(A) or (6)(B) or if any other
information is received from any source,
the Division Director will make a
preliminary determination as to whether
the reported information requires EPA
action to protect human health and/or
the environment. Further action may
include suspending, or revoking the
exclusion, or other appropriate response
necessary to protect human health and
the environment.
(D) If the Division Director determines
that the reported information requires
action by EPA, the Division Director
will notify the facility in writing of
the actions the Division Director
believes are necessary to protect human
health and the environment. The notice
shall include a statement of the
proposed action and a statement
providing the facility with an
opportunity to present information as to
why the proposed EPA action is not
necessary. The facility shall have 10
days from receipt of the Division
Director's notice to present such
information.
(E) Following the receipt of information
from the facility described in paragraph
(6)(D) or (if no information is
presented under paragraph (6)(D)) the
initial receipt of information described
in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B), the
Division Director will issue a final
written determination describing EPA
actions that are necessary to protect
human health and/or the environment. Any
required action described in the
Division Director's determination shall
become effective immediately, unless the
Division Director provides otherwise.
(6) Notification Requirements:
Samsung must do the following before
transporting the delisted waste. Failure
to provide this notification will result
in a violation of the delisting petition
and a possible revocation of the
decision.
(A) Provide a one-time written
notification to any state Regulatory
Agency to which or through which it will
transport the delisted waste described
above for disposal, 60 days before
beginning such activities.
(B) For onsite disposal, a notice should
be submitted to the State to notify the
State that disposal of the delisted
materials has begun.
[[Page 32527]]
(C) Update one-time written notification,
if it ships the delisted waste into a
different disposal facility.
(D) Failure to provide this notification
will result in a violation of the
delisting exclusion and a possible
revocation of the decision.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-14829 Filed 7-13-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
