Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, 49533-49539 [2017-23239]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 206 (Thursday, October 26, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49533-49539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23239]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0153; SW-FRL-9969-73-Region 6]


Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of 
Hazardous Waste

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a 
petition submitted by ExxonMobil Oil Corporation Beaumont Refinery 
(ExxonMobil) to exclude from hazardous waste control (or delist) a 
certain solid waste. This final rule responds to the petition submitted 
by ExxonMobil to have the secondary impoundment basin (SIB) solids 
excluded, or delisted from the definition of a hazardous waste. The SIB 
solids are listed as F037 (primary oil/water/solids separation sludge); 
and F038 (secondary oil/water/solids separation sludge).
    After careful analysis and evaluation of comments submitted by the 
public, the EPA has concluded that the petitioned wastes are not 
hazardous waste when disposed of in Subtitle D landfills. This 
exclusion applies to the surface impoundment solids generated at 
ExxonMobil's Beaumont, Texas facility. Accordingly, this final rule 
excludes the petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste 
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 
when disposed of in Subtitle D landfills but imposes testing conditions 
to ensure that the future-generated wastes remain qualified for 
delisting.

DATES: Effective October 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0153. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. 
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically 
through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information regarding 
the ExxonMobil Beaumont Refinery petition, contact Michelle Peace at 
214-665-7430 or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized 
as follows:

I. Overview Information
    A. What action is EPA finalizing?
    B. Why is EPA approving this delisting?
    C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
    D. How will Beaumont Refinery manage the waste if it is 
delisted?
    E. When is the final delisting exclusion effective?
    F. How does this final rule affect states?
II. Background
    A. What is a ``delisting''?
    B. What regulations allow facilities to delist a waste?
    C. What information must the generator supply?

[[Page 49534]]

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Data
    A. What waste and how much did Beaumont Refinery petition EPA to 
delist?
    B. How did Beaumont Refinery sample and analyze the waste data 
in this petition?
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
    A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?
    B. Comments and Responses
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Overview Information

A. What action is EPA finalizing?

    The EPA is finalizing:
    (1) The decision to grant ExxonMobil's Beaumont Refinery's petition 
to have its surface impoundment basin solids excluded, or delisted, 
from the definition of a hazardous waste, subject to certain continued 
verification and monitoring conditions; and
    (2) to use the Delisting Risk Assessment Software to evaluate the 
potential impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the 
environment. The Agency used this model to predict the concentration of 
hazardous constituents released from the petitioned waste, once it is 
disposed.
    After evaluating the petition, EPA proposed rule, on May 31, 2017, 
to exclude the ExxonMobil Beaumont Refinery waste from the lists of 
hazardous wastes under Sec. Sec.  261.31 and 261.32. The comments 
received on this rulemaking will be addressed as part of this decision.

B. Why is EPA approving this delisting?

    ExxonMobil's petition requests an exclusion from the F037 and F038 
waste listings pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. ExxonMobil does 
not believe that the petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA 
listed it. ExxonMobil 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 
ExxonMobil is based on the information submitted in support of this 
rule, including descriptions of the wastes and analytical data from the 
Beaumont, Texas facility.

C. What are the limits of this exclusion?

    This exclusion applies to the waste described in the petition only 
if the requirements described in Table 1 of part 261, Appendix IX, and 
the conditions contained herein are satisfied. The one-time exclusion 
applies to 400,000 cubic yards of surface impoundment basin solids.

D. How will Beaumont Refinery manage the waste if it is delisted?

    Storage containers with SIB solids will be transported to an 
authorized solid waste landfill (e.g. RCRA Subtitle D landfill, 
commercial/industrial solid waste landfill, etc.) for disposal.

E. When is the final delisting exclusion effective?

    This rule is effective October 26, 2017. The Hazardous and Solid 
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended Section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to 
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community 
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the 
case here because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the 
existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes. These 
reasons also provide a basis for making this rule effective 
immediately, upon publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act, 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

F. How does this final rule affect states?

    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 two categories of 
States: States having a dual system that includes Federal RCRA 
requirements and their own requirements, and States who have received 
our authorization to make their own delisting decisions.
    Here are the details: We allow states to impose their own non-RCRA 
regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under 
section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a 
provision that prohibits a Federally issued exclusion from taking 
effect in the State. Because a dual system (that is, both Federal 
(RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's 
waste, we urge petitioners to contact the State regulatory authority to 
establish the status of their wastes under the State law.
    EPA has also authorized some States (for example, Louisiana, 
Georgia, Illinois) to administer a delisting program in place of the 
Federal program, that is, to make State delisting decisions. Therefore, 
this exclusion does not apply in those authorized States. If Beaumont 
Refinery transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any 
State with delisting authorization, Beaumont Refinery must obtain 
delisting authorization from that State before they can manage the 
waste as nonhazardous in the State.

II. Background

A. What is a delisting?

    A delisting petition is a request from a generator to EPA or 
another agency with jurisdiction to exclude from the list of hazardous 
wastes, wastes the generator does not consider hazardous under RCRA.

B. What regulations allow facilities to delist a waste?

    Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition the EPA to 
remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding them from 
the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Sec. Sec.  261.31 and 
261.32. Specifically, Sec.  260.20 allows any person to petition the 
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of Parts 260 through 
266, 268 and 273 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 
Section 260.22 provides generators the opportunity to petition the 
Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator-specific'' basis from 
the hazardous waste lists.

C. What information must the generator supply?

    Petitioners must provide sufficient information to EPA to allow the 
EPA to

[[Page 49535]]

determine that the waste to be excluded does not meet any of the 
criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In 
addition, the Administrator must determine, where he/she has a 
reasonable basis to believe that factors (including additional 
constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed could 
cause the waste to be a hazardous waste, that such factors do not 
warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Data

A. What waste and how much did Beaumont Refinery petition EPA to 
delist?

    In August 2016, ExxonMobil petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists 
of hazardous wastes contained in Sec. Sec.  261.31 and 261.32, SIB 
solids (F037, F038) generated from its facility located in Beaumont, 
Texas. The waste falls under the classification of listed waste 
pursuant to Sec. Sec.  261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, in its 
petition, ExxonMobil requested that EPA grant a one-time exclusion for 
400,000 cubic yards of SIB solids.
    The 40 CFR part 261 Appendix VII hazardous constituents which are 
the basis for listing can be found in Table 1.

  Table 1--EPA Waste Codes for Surface Impoundment Basin Solids and the
                            Basis for Listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Waste code                       Basis for listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F037...............................  Benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene,
                                      lead, chromium.
F038...............................  Benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene,
                                      lead, chromium.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. How did Beaumont Refinery sample and analyze the waste data in this 
petition?

    To support its petition, ExxonMobil submitted:
    (1) Historical information on waste generation and management 
practices; and
    (2) analytical results from thirty-nine samples for total and TCLP 
concentrations of compounds of concern (COC)s;

                      Table 2--Analytical Results/Maximum Allowable Delisting Concentration
            [Secondary Impoundment Basin (SIB) Solids ExxonMobil Beaumont Refinery, Beaumont, Texas]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum total     Maximum TCLP     Maximum TCLP
                         Constituent                            concentration    concentration   delisting level
                                                                   (mg/kg)           (mg/L)           (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.....................................................             4.84            0.023             .109
Arsenic......................................................             33.6            0.077             .424
Barium.......................................................              455             1.47               36
Beryllium....................................................             1.38           <0.002              2.0
Cadmium......................................................             2.05           <0.002             0.09
Chromium.....................................................              697            0.205             2.27
Cobalt.......................................................             19.4           0.0371            0.214
Lead.........................................................              400            0.656            0.702
Mercury......................................................             3.61         0.000049            0.068
Nickel.......................................................             68.2            0.152             13.5
Selenium.....................................................             28.7           0.0177            0.890
Silver.......................................................             1.23            0.002              5.0
Vanadium.....................................................             90.7           0.0815             3.77
Zinc.........................................................            2,470             5.43              197
2,4 Dimethylphenol...........................................             0.97           0.0018             11.3
2-Methylphenol...............................................            <0.71         <.000033             28.9
3-Methylphenol...............................................            <0.64            0.002             28.9
4-Methylphenol...............................................            <0.64          0.00047             2.89
Acenaphthene.................................................              1.7          0.00091             10.6
Anthracene...................................................              2.9          0.00019             25.9
Benz(a)anthracene............................................              7.2         0.000034             0.07
Benz(a)pyrene................................................                5         <0.00003             26.3
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate...................................               34           0.0002          106,000
Chrysene.....................................................               19         0.000048             7.01
Di-n-butyl phthalate.........................................             0.66           0.0013             24.6
Fluoranthene.................................................              2.1         0.000078             2.46
Fluorene.....................................................              4.9           0.0016             4.91
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene.......................................              2.6        <0.000051               73
Naphthalene..................................................               26             0.02           0.0327
Phenol.......................................................            <0.71          0.00025              173
Pyrene.......................................................              N/A          0.00019             4.45
Benzene......................................................              1.1           <0.004            0.077
Xylenes, total...............................................               53             0.18             9.56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


[[Page 49536]]

IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion

A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?

    The EPA received four anonymous public comments on the May 31, 
2017, proposed rule via regulations.gov. EPA also received comments 
from the facility regarding the conditions and nomenclature on Table 1. 
The comments and responses are addressed below.

B. Comments and Responses

    Comment 1. ``Exxon Mobil requests that language found on Pages 
24929, 24931, and 24932 be revised to reflect that the SIB solids are 
delisted upon final publication in the Federal Register. The text in 
Section IV (Next Steps), Items A.(2) and A.(3) is currently structured 
such that additional testing would have to be performed to verify that 
delisting limits are met. Items (2), (3), and (4) of Table 1 (Pages 
24931 and 34932) also reflect these requirements. This language appears 
to be a ``holdover'' associated with another delisting petition 
request. Our sampling program included collection of over 30 samples to 
support the delisting petition request. As such, we believe we have 
already completed a rigorous sampling program in support of this 
request. Also, we would note in several locations that the petition 
volume is listed as ``400,000 wet'' cubic yards. The SIB solids will 
contain water upon removal from the pond. However, they will be 
dewatered (e.g. filtration, addition of cement, etc.) to pass the paint 
filter test prior to disposal. As such, we suggest removing the word 
wet in reference to the delisted volume.''
    Response 1. The language found in Table 1 of the exclusion has been 
revised to remove all conditional exclusion language. The request for 
the delisting is a one-time exclusion which is conditioned on proper 
disposal of up to 400,000 cubic yards of SIB solids and contains the 
data submittals, reopener and disposal notification clauses for all 
delisting exclusions. The conditions were included in the proposed rule 
in error. All references regarding the wet solids have been removed 
because the waste will not be disposed of in this manner. The reference 
to wet solids was in regards to the volume of solids as generated 
during the removal.
    Comment 2. ``Excuse me? ExxonMobile wants to dump their waste into 
the landfills where it can pollute our ground water? NO. Absolutely 
NOT. These waste products are toxic to the environment and need to stay 
listed as hazardous. We don't want this stuff seeping into our 
groundwater for our kids to drink. ExxonMobile needs to spend the money 
on research to break down this waste sludge into something that doesn't 
hurt the environment. They must not be allowed to put it in dumps or 
store it somewhere. There probably are some kind of bacteria that will 
break this stuff down into something useful or non toxic. This stuff 
should NOT end up in our ground water. If you cannot do something 
positive with this waste, the process whereby this waste is produced 
MUST BE STOPPED. We need to move away from fossil fuel use and towards 
renewable energy and sustainable products.''
    Response 2. The Delisting Program requires extensive waste sampling 
and a risk assessment is performed to assess a wastes potential harm to 
human health and the environment. The program is designed to insure 
that the wastes which are deemed excluded will not be managed in a 
manner to harm human health or the environment. This waste will be 
managed in a Subtitle D industrial waste landfill as solid waste to 
prevent releases to groundwater and air pathways.
    Comment 3. ``The EPA should feel obligated to ensure that there are 
no possible adverse effects to humans or the environment by approving 
the petition from ExxonMobile. The EPA should conduct their own 
investigation, take their own samples, and perform data analysis to 
confirm that there are no discrepancies between their findings and 
those provided by the Beaumont facility. In the list of constituents 
provided by ExxonMobile, there are known human carcinogens such as 
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and benzene, along with 
other harmful constituents such as lead and mercury. The EPA should 
conduct an environmental impact assessment before approving this 
petition.''
    Response 3. The requirements of the Federal regulations defined in 
40 CFR part 260.20, and 260.22, describe the process by which wastes 
may be removed from the list of hazardous waste. In addition to 
extensive quality assurance and quality control data for the samples 
taken, EPA performs a risk assessment using the Delisting Risk 
Assessment Software to ensure that our decision is protective of human 
health and the environment. The constituent concentrations found in the 
surface impoundment basin solids are below the concentrations that 
would pose harm to human health and the environment.
    Comment 4. ``Although the tests that have been run by ExxonMobil's 
Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) to provide scientific 
reasoning to the EPA for the delisting of SIB solids, I believe that 
more research must be conducted by the EPA itself. Employees of this 
agency should especially check the individual components of the SIB 
solids and test for even greater possibilities than those proposed by 
the DRAS; the DRAS was not said to take into account the effects that 
chemical exposure would produce on surrounding populations or even 
employees themselves if buildups were to occur. Risk assessment should 
be issued for each individual chemical compound by the EPA. Assuming 
the EPA would like to work rather quickly on this issue considering 
ExxonMobil's insistence that the SIB solids are non-hazardous, benefits 
would include reduced regulation on the industry, as well as, one less 
responsibility for the EPA. However, closer examination needs to occur, 
especially since this test has only been conducted for Beaumont, 
Texas.''
    Response 4. A waste is eligible for delisting only if that waste, 
as generated at a particular facility, does not meet any of the 
criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In 
addition, the waste may not contain any other Appendix VIII 
constituents that would cause the waste to be hazardous. RCRA Sec.  
3001(f) and 40 CFR 260.22. A delisting is only intended to address a 
specific waste stream generated at a specific site. The risk analysis 
is conducted specifically for each chemical constituent of the waste 
stream. If any constituent concentration exceeds the delisting limit, 
the entire waste stream remains hazardous.
    The delisting risk analysis performed using the Delisting Risk 
Assessment Software evaluates the worst case scenario for the 
petitioned waste and risk pathways are evaluated. All chemical 
constituents detected in the waste are individually assessed for their 
impact on human health and the environment.
    Comment 5. ``I believe there should be a thorough health 
examination of all employees in the facility who work directly with the 
waste proposed for delisting. Some of these chemicals can build-up in 
the system over time and if any de-regulations are to occur they need 
science based evidence to prove the decision would not pose a human 
safety issue. If the decision would not prove to have a high economical 
impact, I do not see any reason it should be considered, especially 
when the decision is for only a single site.''
    Response 5. A waste is eligible for delisting only if that waste, 
as generated

[[Page 49537]]

at a particular facility, does not meet any of the criteria under which 
the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In addition, the waste may 
not contain any other Appendix VIII constituents that would cause the 
waste to be hazardous. RCRA Sec.  3001(f) and 40 CFR 260.22. A 
delisting is only intended to address a specific waste stream generated 
at a specific site. Since individual waste streams may vary depending 
on raw materials, industrial processes, and other factors, it may be 
appropriate not to list a specific waste from a specific site. 
Therefore, while a waste described in the regulations or resulting from 
the operation of the mixture or derived-from rules generally is 
hazardous, a specific 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. A risk assessment of the 
petitioned waste is completed and a part of the decision factors in 
issuing an exclusion. Specific health examinations and worker 
protection is covered by the facility operating plans and overseen by 
OSHA. Worker safety during the management of this waste to avoid 
contact with this material are covered by the Health and Safety plans 
of the petitioner.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability 
and therefore, is not a regulatory action subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rule does not impose an 
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it applies to a 
particular facility only. Because this rule is of particular 
applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to 
the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because 
this rule will affect only a particular facility, it will not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as specified in 
section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule will affect only a particular 
facility, this proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It 
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'', (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply 
to this rule.
    Similarly, because this rule will affect only a particular 
facility, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as 
specified in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. This rule also is 
not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in 
Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to 
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this 
action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for this 
belief is that the Agency used DRAS, which considers health and safety 
risks to children, to calculate the maximum allowable concentrations 
for this rule. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it 
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. 
This rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 
of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'', (61 FR 4729, 
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary 
steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential 
litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report which includes a copy of the rule to 
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 
States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of 
rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to 
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, 
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or 
obligations of non-agency parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not 
required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 
801 because this is a rule of particular applicability. Executive Order 
(E.O.) 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: October 4, 2017.
Wren Stenger,
Director, Multimedia Division, Region 6.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended 
as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.


0
2. In Table 1--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources in Appendix IX 
to Part 261, add the following waste stream in alphabetical order by 
facility to read as follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261--Waste Excluded Under Sec. Sec.  260.20 and 
260.22

[[Page 49538]]



                               Table 1--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Facility                      Address                             Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
ExxonMobil....................  Beaumont, TX.............  Secondary Impoundment Basin Solids (SIB) (EPA
                                                            Hazardous Waste Numbers F037 and F038) generated at
                                                            a maximum rate of 400,000 cubic yards.
                                                           (1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations for those
                                                            constituents must not exceed the maximum allowable
                                                            concentrations in mg/l specified in this paragraph.
                                                           Surface Impoundment Basin Solids. Leachable
                                                            Concentrations (mg/l): Antimony--0.109; Arsenic--
                                                            0.424; Barium--36; Beryllium--2.0; Cadmium--0.09;
                                                            Chromium--2.27; Cobalt--0.214; Lead--0.702; Mercury--
                                                            0.068; Nickel--13.5; Selenium--0.890; Silver--5.0;
                                                            Vanadium--3.77; Zinc--197; 2,4 Dimethylphenol--11.3;
                                                            2-Methylphenol--28.9; 3-Methylphenol--28.9; 4-
                                                            Methylphenol--2.89; Acenaphthene--10.6; Anthracene---
                                                            25.9; Benz(a)anthracene--0.07; Benz(a)pyrene--26.3;
                                                            Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate--106,000; Chrysene--
                                                            7.01; Di-n-butyl phthalate--24.6; Fluoranthene--
                                                            2.46; Fluorene--4.91; Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene--73;
                                                            Naphthalene--0.0327; Phenol--173; Pyrene--4.45;
                                                            Benzene--0.077; Xylenes, total--9.56
                                                           (2) Reopener
                                                           (A) If, any time after disposal of the delisted waste
                                                            ExxonMobil 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 verification testing (and retest, if
                                                            applicable) of the waste does not meet the delisting
                                                            requirements in paragraph 1, ExxonMobil 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 ExxonMobil fails to submit the information
                                                            described in paragraphs (2),(3)(A) or (3)(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 (3)(D) or (if no
                                                            information is presented under paragraph (3)(D)) the
                                                            initial receipt of information described in
                                                            paragraphs (2), (3)(A) or (3)(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.
                                                           (3) Notification Requirements:
                                                           ExxonMobil 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.
                                                           (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. 2017-23239 Filed 10-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P