Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, 50348-50358 [2017-23683]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
50348
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules
22.4.5 Mail Characteristic Postage
Adjustment Factor Verification
The Mail Characteristic, Postage
Adjustment Factor (PAF), is used for
errors in the processing category, mail
class, nonprofit eligibility and content.
The threshold is 1.05. A mailer will
only be subject to an assessment when
the eDoc submitter has exceeded the
Mail Characteristic PAF threshold in the
current billing month and three or more
times in the previous 11 billing months.
The Mail Characteristic PAF is applied
at the eDoc Submitter CRID level and is
calculated using the adjusted and eDoc
postage attributed to the Mail Owner.
*
*
*
*
*
705.23.0
Option
Full-Service Automation
23.1 Description
[Revise the second sentence of 23.1 to
read as follows:]
* * * For additional information on
the full-service automation option see
Publication 6850, Publication for
Streamlined Mail Acceptance for Letters
and Flats, available on PostalPro at
https://postalpro.usps.com.
*
*
*
*
*
[Add new subsection 23.6,
Verifications, to read as follows:]
23.6 Verifications
The six full-service verification
descriptions, error thresholds, and
postage assessments, are provided in
23.6.1 through 23.6.6.
23.6.2 Service Type ID (STID)
Verification
The STID is a three-digit code
included in the IMb for a mailpiece to
provide mail class and service level.
The error threshold is 2%. Errors over
the threshold will be subject to an
assessment amount equal to the removal
of the full-service discount claimed for
each piece in error above the threshold.
Entry Facility Verification
The entry facility location must be
identified in the eDoc by a Locale Key
or ZIP Code. The error threshold is 2%.
Errors above the threshold are subject to
an assessment amount of the full-service
discount claimed for each piece in error
above the threshold.
Unlinked Copal Verification
Mailings that will be copalletized
must be identified in the original eDoc
submission and properly documented
within 14 days of the mailing date to
link trays or sacks to the container. The
error threshold is 5%. Errors above the
threshold are subject to an assessment
amount equal to the full-service
discount claimed.
*
*
*
*
*
If the proposal is adopted, we will
publish an appropriate amendment to
39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.
Stanley F. Mires,
Attorney, Federal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017–23615 Filed 10–30–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
23.6.3 By/For Verification
The By/For relationship recognizes
the Mail Owner and Mail Service
Provider in the eDoc. The error
threshold is 5%. An error occurs when
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Oct 30, 2017
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R06–RCRA–2017–0556; FRL–9970–
10-Region 6]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
Barcode uniqueness is met when a
barcode is unique across all mailers and
mailings for 45 days. The error
threshold is 2%. Errors occur when the
IMcb, IMtb or IMb is not unique across
all mailings from all mailers over the
previous 45 days of the postage
statement mailing date that was
provided in the eDoc. Errors above the
threshold are subject to an assessment
equal to the removal of the full-service
discount claimed for each piece in error
above the threshold.
23.6.5
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
AGENCY:
23.6.4 Barcode Uniqueness
Verification
23.6.6
23.6.1 Mailer Identification (MID)
Verification
The MID is a code used for
identification of mail’s responsible
party. A valid MID is one that is
registered within the Postal Service
systems and provided in the eDoc. The
error threshold is 2%. Errors over the
threshold will be subject to an
assessment amount equal to the removal
of the full-service discount claimed for
each piece in error above the threshold.
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
a valid Mail Preparer is not identified,
a valid Mail Owner is not identified,
Mail Preparer is incorrectly recorded as
the Mail Owner, or the Mail Owner is
incorrectly identified as the Mail
Preparer. Errors above the threshold are
subject to an assessment amount equal
to the removal of the full-service
discount claimed for each piece in error
above the threshold.
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to grant a
petition submitted by Blanchard
Refining Company LLC—(Blanchard) to
exclude (or delist) the residual solids
generated from the reclamation of oil
bearing hazardous secondary materials
(OBSMs) on-site at Blanchard’s
Galveston Bay Refinery (GBR), located
in Texas City, Texas from the lists of
hazardous wastes. EPA used the
Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS) Version 3.0.35 in the evaluation
of the impact of the petitioned waste on
human health and the environment.
DATES: We will accept comments until
November 30, 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 November 15, 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–2017–0556, 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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\31OCP1.SGM
31OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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
Blanchard Refinery 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 November 15, 2017. The
request must contain the information
described in 40 CFR 260.20(d).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Blanchard
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 wastespecific 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
Blanchard’s petitioned waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original
listing criteria. EPA would also
conclude that Blanchard’s reclamation
process minimizes short-term and longterm threats from the petitioned waste
to human health and the environment.
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
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 Blanchard 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 Blanchard petition
EPA to delist?
B. Who is Blanchard and what process
does it use to generate the petitioned
waste?
C. How did Blanchard sample and analyze
the data in this petition?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Oct 30, 2017
Jkt 244001
D. What were the results of Blanchard’s
sample analysis?
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of
delisting this waste?
F. What did EPA conclude about
Blanchard’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 Blanchard 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
Blanchard to have the residual solids
excluded, or delisted from the definition
of a hazardous waste. The residual
solids are listed as F037. Blanchard’s
residual solids are listed as a hazardous
waste, based on the potential presence
of Appendix VII inorganic constituents
of concern, lead and chromium, and
Appendix VII organic constituents of
concern benzene, benzo(a)pyrene and
chrysene.
B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this
delisting?
Blanchard’s petition requests an
exclusion from the F037 waste listing
pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22.
Blanchard does not believe that the
petitioned waste meets the criteria for
which EPA listed it. Blanchard 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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
50349
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
Blanchard is based on the information
submitted in support of this rule,
including descriptions of the wastes and
analytical data resulting from
Blanchard’s delisting demonstration
conducted on the petitioned waste.
C. How will Blanchard manage the
waste if it is delisted?
If the residual solids are delisted,
contingent upon approval of the
delisting petition, storage containers
with Blanchard’s delisted residual
solids 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
E:\FR\FM\31OCP1.SGM
31OCP1
50350
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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
Blanchard transports the delisted waste
to or manages the delisted waste in any
state with delisting authorization,
Blanchard must obtain delisting
authorization from that state before it
can manage the delisted waste as nonhazardous in the state.
II. Background
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Oct 30, 2017
Jkt 244001
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
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 § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
hazardous wastes and wastes derived
from treating, storing, or disposing of
listed hazardous waste. See
§ 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 wastes did Blanchard petition
EPA to Delist?
In June 2017, Blanchard petitioned
EPA to exclude from the lists of
hazardous wastes contained in
§§ 261.31 and 261.32, residual solids
(F037) generated during reclamation
activities conducted at its GBR facility
located in Texas City, Texas. The waste
falls under the classification of listed
waste pursuant to §§ 261.31 and 261.32.
Specifically, in its petition, Blanchard
requested that EPA grant a conditional
exclusion for the annual generation
volume of 20,000 cubic yards of F037
residual solids.
B. Who is Blanchard and what process
does it use to generate the petitioned
waste?
Blanchard owns and operates the GBR
facility, located in Texas City, Galveston
County, Texas. Blanchard is a whollyowned subsidiary of Marathon
Petroleum Company LP. Blanchard’s
demonstration evaluated representative
samples of its residual solids resulting
from the indirect thermal desorption
reclamation of OBSMs managed on-site
at Blanchard’s GBR facility. OBSMs
managed on-site at Blanchard’s GBR
facility result from separate
management practices within GBR’s
petroleum refining operations.
Blanchard’s approved Sampling and
Analysis Plan (SAP) identified three (3)
management practices, which result in
the generation of three (3)
corresponding categories of OBSMs
with unique physical properties. The
three (3) identified categories of
Blanchard’s OBSMs include, Category 1,
Oil/Water/Solid Separation Sludges
(K048 through K052, F037 and F038);
Category 2, Crude Oil and Clarified
Slurry Oil Sediments (K169 and K170);
and Category 3, Stabilized Spent
Hydrotreating and Hydrorefining
Catalysts (K171 and K172).
Blanchard’s demonstration utilized a
commercial indirectly-fired thermal
desorption unit (‘‘ITDU’’) located at US
Ecology Texas’ (‘‘USET’’) permitted
commercial facility in Robstown, Texas.
Blanchard considered it prudent to
E:\FR\FM\31OCP1.SGM
31OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules
utilize USET’s ITDU to avoid having to
invest the significant capital and
resources required to site and construct
a full-scale ITDU on-site at Blanchard’s
GBR facility, prior to receiving an
approved delisting determination. The
EPA acknowledged Blanchard’s use of
USET’s commercial ITDU to perform its
demonstration, under its approved SAP.
USET’s commercial ITDU was
designed and constructed by TD*X
Associates LP (‘‘TD*X’’), located in
Beaumont, Texas. TD*X currently
operates the commercial ITDU on-site at
USET’s Robstown facility, under
contract with USET. USET has
extensive experience in the management
and processing of Blanchard’s OBSMs,
and is currently contracted with
Blanchard to provide such services at
USET’s Robstown facility.
Blanchard has entered into a services
agreement with US Ecology Thermal
Services LLC (‘‘USETS’’) to provide and
operate an ITDU, on-site at its GBR
facility. USETS is the refinery services
affiliate of USET. Blanchard’s proposed
ITDU will be designed, constructed and
operated by TD*X, as part of USETS’s
services agreement with Blanchard. The
processing capabilities, efficiencies and
capacity of Blanchard’s proposed ITDU
are comparable to USET’s commercial
50351
ITDU that was utilized under
Blanchard’s demonstration.
D. What were the results of Blanchard’s
sample analyses?
C. How did Blanchard sample and
analyze the data in this petition?
EPA believes that the descriptions of
the Blanchard analytical
characterization provide a reasonable
basis to grant Blanchard’s petition for an
exclusion of the residual solids. EPA
believes the data submitted in support
of the petition show the residual solids
is non-hazardous. Analytical data for
the residual solids samples were used in
the DRAS to develop delisting levels.
The residual solids from Category 3 can
only be delisted if stabilization of the
residual solids occur. Data from the
stabilized Category 3 residual solids
demonstrate the concentrations from the
stabilized residuals meet the delisting
requirements. The data summaries for
COCs are presented in Table I. EPA has
reviewed the sampling procedures used
by Blanchard and has determined that it
satisfies EPA criteria for collecting
representative samples of the variations
in constituent concentrations in the
residual solids. In addition, the data
submitted in support of the petition
show that COCs in Blanchard’s waste
are presently below health-based levels
used in the delisting decision-making.
EPA believes that Blanchard has
successfully demonstrated that the
residual solids are non-hazardous.
To support its petition, Blanchard
conducted individual sampling events
on residual solids resulting from the
reclamation of Blanchard’s three (3)
identified categories of OBSMs. Each
separate sampling event consisted of
four (4) composite samples taken during
a 24-hour period of representative
operation. Each composite sample was
comprised of individual grab samples
(i.e. a minimum of four), obtained
during separate six (6) hour periods of
the 24-hour sampling event.
Compositing of samples and
performance of quality control
requirements were performed by
Blanchard’s selected analytical
laboratory, TestAmerica Laboratories,
Inc. (‘‘TestAmerica’’). Blanchard
submitted: Historical information on
waste generation and management
practices; and analytical results from
twelve samples for total and TCLP
concentrations of constituents of
concern (COC)s.
TABLE 1—ANALYTICAL RESULTS/MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATION
[Residual solids—Blanchard Refining Company LLC, Texas City, Texas]
Maximum total
concentration
(mg/kg)
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Constituent
Acetone ........................................................................................................................................
Antimony ......................................................................................................................................
Anthracene ...................................................................................................................................
Arsenic .........................................................................................................................................
Barium ..........................................................................................................................................
Benzene .......................................................................................................................................
Benzo (a) anthracene ..................................................................................................................
Benzo(a) pyrene ..........................................................................................................................
Benzo (b) flouranthene ................................................................................................................
Beryllium ......................................................................................................................................
Cadmium ......................................................................................................................................
Chromium ....................................................................................................................................
Chrysene ......................................................................................................................................
Cobalt ...........................................................................................................................................
Copper .........................................................................................................................................
Cyanide ........................................................................................................................................
Diethyl Phthalate ..........................................................................................................................
Flouranthrene ...............................................................................................................................
Flourene .......................................................................................................................................
Lead .............................................................................................................................................
2, methylphenol ...........................................................................................................................
3,4 methylphenol .........................................................................................................................
Methylene Chloride ......................................................................................................................
Methyl Naphthalene .....................................................................................................................
Mercury ........................................................................................................................................
Naphthalene .................................................................................................................................
Nickel ...........................................................................................................................................
Phenanthrene ..............................................................................................................................
Phenol ..........................................................................................................................................
Pyrene ..........................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Oct 30, 2017
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0.185
53.7
0.488
222.0
950.0
1.25
0.512
0.0298
0.286
8.61
0.441
120.0
0.272
242.0
639.0
99.4
0.493
0.405
0.420
963.0
1.31
2.18
0.827
0.365
0.0403
0.874
29,000
2.16
6.55
1.76
E:\FR\FM\31OCP1.SGM
31OCP1
Maximum
TCLP
concentration
(mg/L)
0.226
0.226
<0.0125
0.277
0.221
<0.00280
<0.0106
<0.0123
<0.0125
0.235
<0.00280
0.0550
<0.0103
0.818
<0.0813
<0.0702
<0.0130
<0.0122
<0.00710
<0.0219
<0.00710
<0.00675
0.00756
<0.0129
0.000104
<0.0110
<0.00800
<0.0112
0.00813
<0.0150
Maximum
TCLP
delisting level
(mg/L)
520.0
0.599
25.993
0.424
36.0
0.077
0.070
2.634
22.43
1.764
0.217
3.06
7.006
0.902
21.527
3.08
990
2.462
4.91
0.984
28.952
28.952
0.0790
0.727
0.068
0.0327
13.5
10.626
173
4.446
50352
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—ANALYTICAL RESULTS/MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATION—Continued
[Residual solids—Blanchard Refining Company LLC, Texas City, Texas]
Maximum total
concentration
(mg/kg)
Constituent
Pyridine ........................................................................................................................................
Selenium ......................................................................................................................................
Silver ............................................................................................................................................
Toluene ........................................................................................................................................
Tin ................................................................................................................................................
Thallium .......................................................................................................................................
Vanadium .....................................................................................................................................
Zinc ..............................................................................................................................................
0.197
13.5
1.86
0.670
13.8
110.0
75,400
1920.0
Maximum
TCLP
concentration
(mg/L)
<0.0108
0.0530
<0.0129
<0.00275
<0.00590
0.0220
0.215
0.487
Maximum
TCLP
delisting level
(mg/L)
0.5775
1.0
5.0
15.1
387
0.0366
4.6436
197
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.
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD 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 landfill is the most
reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario
for Blanchard’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 Blanchard’s
petitioned waste on human health and
the environment. A copy of this
software can be found on the world
wide web at f://www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/
wptdiv/hazardous/delisting/drassoftware.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 backcalculate 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 backcalculates the maximum permissible
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Oct 30, 2017
Jkt 244001
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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 COCs tested are likely to be
present or formed as reaction products
or by-products in Blanchard’s waste.
F. What did EPA conclude about
Blanchard’s waste analysis?
EPA concluded, after reviewing
Blanchard’s processes, that no other
hazardous COCs, other than those for
which tested, are likely to be present or
formed as reaction products or byproducts in the waste. In addition, on
the basis of explanations and analytical
data provided by Blanchard, 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.
G. What other factors did EPA consider
in its evaluation?
During the evaluation of Blanchard’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
Blanchard’s petitioned waste is
unlikely. Therefore, no appreciable air
releases are likely from Blanchard’s
residual solids under any likely disposal
conditions. EPA evaluated the potential
hazards resulting from the unlikely
scenario of airborne exposure to
hazardous constituents released from
E:\FR\FM\31OCP1.SGM
31OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Blanchard’s residual solids 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 Blanchard’s residual solids.
H. What is EPA’s evaluation of this
delisting petition?
The descriptions of Blanchard’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 Blanchard’s
residual solids will not impose any
threat to human health and the
environment.
Thus, EPA believes Blanchard should
be granted an exclusion for the residual
solids. EPA believes the data submitted
in support of the petition show
Blanchard’s residual solids is nonhazardous. The data submitted in
support of the petition show that
constituents in Blanchard’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 Blanchard has
successfully demonstrated that the
residual solids sludge is non-hazardous.
EPA therefore, proposes to grant an
exclusion to Blanchard for the residual
solids 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
residual solids.
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, Blanchard, 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.
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
(1) Delisting Levels
This paragraph provides the levels of
constituents for which Blanchard must
test the residual solids, 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Oct 30, 2017
Jkt 244001
exclusion language) based on
information in the petition. EPA
compiled the inorganic and organic
constituents list from the composition of
the waste, descriptions of Blanchard’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 Blanchard manages and
disposes of any residual solids that
contains hazardous levels of inorganic
and organic constituents according to
Subtitle C of RCRA. Managing the
residual solids 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 of Blanchard’s residual
solids as non-hazardous cannot begin
until the verification sampling is
completed.
(3) Verification, Subsequent, and
Annual Testing Requirements
Blanchard must complete a rigorous
verification testing program on the
residual solids 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 residual solids are
discharged from Blanchard’s
reclamation process, prior to
containment and disposal. The volume
of residual solids generated may not
exceed 20,000 cubic yards of sludge
material annually. Any volume of
residual solids generated in excess of
20,000 cubic yards during any twelvemonth period 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 residual
solids. If the data from the verification
testing program demonstrate that the
residual solids meet the delisting levels,
Blanchard may commence disposing of
the residual solids as non-hazardous
solid waste. Blanchard will notify EPA
in writing, if and when it begins and
ends disposal of the delisted residual
solids.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
50353
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions
If Blanchard significantly changes the
reclamation process described in its
petition or starts any processes that
generate(s) the waste that may or could
affect the composition or type of waste
generated as established under
Paragraph (1) (by illustration, but not
limitation, changes in equipment or
operating conditions of the treatment
process), they must notify EPA in
writing. Blanchard may no longer
handle the residual solids generated
from the new process as non-hazardous
until they have completed verification
testing described in Paragraph (3)(A)
and (B).
(5) Stabilization Operations
Blanchard describes an application
where it may periodically elect to
modify operating conditions under its
reclamation process to accommodate the
addition of chemical stabilization
reagents. The facility also provided data
on stabilized materials as part of its
petition. In the event Blanchard initiates
the inclusion of stabilization during
operation of its reclamation process,
they may no longer handle the residual
solids generated from the modified
process as non-hazardous until the
residual solids meet the delisting levels
set in Paragraph (1) under initial
verification testing requirements set in
Paragraph (3)(A) and verify that no
additional constituents are leaching
from the stabilized residual solids.
Following completion of modified
operation of its reclamation process,
Blanchard can resume normal operating
conditions and testing requirements
under Paragraph (3), which were in
place prior to initiating the addition of
stabilization.
(6) Data Submittals
To provide appropriate
documentation that Blanchard’s
residual solids meet the delisting levels,
Blanchard 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
Blanchard 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 the volume
of 20,000 cubic yards of residual solids
generated annually at Blanchard’s GBR
facility after successful verification
testing. EPA would require Blanchard to
E:\FR\FM\31OCP1.SGM
31OCP1
50354
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
file a new delisting petition for any
volume of residual solids generated
during any twelve-month period in
excess of the 20,000 cubic yards, and
manage the excess volume of residual
solids as hazardous waste until EPA
grants a new exclusion.
When this exclusion becomes final,
Blanchard’s management of the residual
solids covered by this petition would be
relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction,
and the residual solids from Blanchard
will be disposed of in an authorized,
solid waste landfill (e.g. RCRA Subtitle
D landfill, commercial/industrial solid
waste landfill, etc.).
(7) Reopener
The purpose of Paragraph (6) of the
exclusion language is to require
Blanchard to disclose new or different
information related to a condition at
Blanchard’s facility or disposal of the
waste, if it is pertinent to the delisting.
Blanchard must also use this procedure,
if the annual testing fails to meet the
levels found in Paragraph (1). 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 Blanchard
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 delisting 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Oct 30, 2017
Jkt 244001
Where necessary, EPA will make a good
cause finding to justify emergency
rulemaking. See APA § 553(b).
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202.
(8) Notification Requirements
B. How may I review the docket or
obtain copies of the proposed
exclusion?
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
are 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.
In order to adequately track wastes
that have been delisted, EPA is
requiring that Blanchard provide a onetime notification to any state regulatory
agency through which or to which the
delisted waste is being carried.
Blanchard must provide this
notification sixty (60) days before
commencing this activity.
B. What happens if Blanchard violates
the terms and conditions?
If Blanchard 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
Blanchard 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. Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA–R06–RCRA–2017–0556, 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.
You should submit requests for a
hearing to Kishor Fruitwala, Section
Chief (6MM–RP), Multimedia Division,
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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,
E:\FR\FM\31OCP1.SGM
31OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules
as specified in Executive Order 13175,
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this rule. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe
the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The
basis for this belief is that the Agency
used DRAS, which considers health and
safety risks to children, to calculate the
maximum allowable concentrations for
this rule. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. This rule does not involve
technical standards; thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’, (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule,
EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report which includes a
copy of the rule to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. Section 804
exempts from section 801 the following
types of rules: (1) Rules of particular
applicability; (2) rules relating to agency
management or personnel; and (3) rules
of agency organization, procedure, or
practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency
parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not
required to submit a rule report
regarding today’s action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular
applicability. Executive Order (EO)
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 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
50355
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.
Dated: October 17, 2017.
Wren Stenger,
Director, Multimedia Division, Region 6.
For the reasons set forth 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 ‘‘Blanchard Refining
Company LLC’’ in alphabetical order to
read as follows:
■
Appendix IX to Part 261—Waste
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22
TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
Facility
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
*
Blanchard Refining
Company LLC.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Address
Waste description
*
Texas City, TX .......
*
*
*
*
*
Residual solids (EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers F037) generated at a maximum rate of as
20,000 cubic yards annually.
For the exclusion to be valid, Blanchard must implement a verification testing program that
meets the following Paragraphs:
(1) All leachable concentrations for those constituents must not exceed the following levels
measured as mg/L (ppm). The petitioner must use an acceptable leaching method, for example SW–846, Method 1311, to measure constituents in the residual solids leachate.
(A) Inorganic Constituents of Concern: Antimony—0.5985; Arsenic—0.424; Barium—36; Beryllium—1.74; Chromium—3.06; Cobalt—0.902; Lead—0.984; Nickel—13.5; Selenium—1.0; Vanadium—4.64, Zinc—197. Mercury—0.068.
(B) Organic Constituents of Concern: Acetone—520.0; Anthracene—25.993; Benzene—0.077;
Benzo(a)pyrene—2.634, Chrysene—7.006; Methylene Chloride—0.0790; Phenanthrene—
10.626; Phenol—173; Pyrene—4.446.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
(A) Blanchard must manage and dispose its residual solids as hazardous waste generated
under Subtitle C of RCRA, until they have completed verification testing described in Paragraph (3)(A) and (B), as appropriate, and valid analyses show that paragraph (1) is satisfied.
(B) Levels of constituents measured in the samples of the residual solids that do not exceed
the levels set forth in Paragraph (1) are nonhazardous. Blanchard can manage and dispose
the nonhazardous residual solids according to all applicable solid waste regulations.
16:28 Oct 30, 2017
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\31OCP1.SGM
31OCP1
50356
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Facility
Address
Waste description
(C) If constituent levels in a sample exceed any of the delisting levels set in Paragraph (1),
Blanchard must retreat or stabilize the residual solids represented by the sample exceeding
the delisting levels, until it meets the levels in paragraph (1). Blanchard must repeat the analyses of the retreated residual solids.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements:
Blanchard must perform analytical testing by sampling and analyzing the Residual solids as follows:
(i) Collect representative samples of the Residual solids for analysis of all constituents listed in
paragraph (1) prior to disposal.
(ii) The samples for verification 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
Blanchard residual solids are representative for all constituents listed in paragraph (1).
Blanchard must perform sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures,
according to SW–846 methodologies.
(A) Initial Verification Testing:
After EPA grants the final exclusion, Blanchard must do the following:
(i) Collect four (4) representative composite samples of the residual solids at weekly intervals
after EPA grants the final exclusion. The first composite samples may be taken at any time
after EPA grants the final approval. Sampling should be performed in accordance with the
sampling plan approved by EPA in support of the exclusion.
(ii) Analyze the samples for all constituents listed in paragraph (1). Any composite sample
taken that exceeds the delisting levels listed in paragraph (1) for the residual solids must be
disposed as hazardous waste in accordance with the applicable hazardous waste requirements.
(iii) Within thirty (30) days after successfully completing its initial verification testing, Blanchard
may report its analytical test data for its initial four (4) weekly composite samples to EPA. If
levels of constituents measured in the samples of the residual solids do not exceed the levels
set forth in paragraph (1) of this exclusion, Blanchard can manage and dispose the non-hazardous residual solids according to all applicable solid waste regulations.
(B) Subsequent Verification Testing:
If Blanchard completes initial verification testing requirements, specified in paragraph (3)(A),
and no sample contains a constituent at a level which exceeds the limits set forth in paragraph (1), Blanchard may begin subsequent verification testing as follows:
(i) Blanchard must test representative composite samples of the residual solids for all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at least once per month.
(ii) The samples for the monthly testing shall be a representative composite sample according
to appropriate methods.
(iii) Within thirty (30) days after completing each monthly sampling, Blanchard will report its analytical test data to EPA.
(C) Annual Verification Testing:
If levels of constituents measured in the samples of the residual solids do not exceed the levels
set forth in paragraph (1) of this exclusion for six (6) consecutive months of subsequent
verification testing, Blanchard may begin annual testing as follows:
(i) Blanchard must test representative composite samples of the residual solids for all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at least once per calendar year.
(ii) The samples for the annual testing shall be a representative composite sample according to
appropriate methods.
(iii) Within sixty (60) days after completing each annual sampling, Blanchard will report its analytical test data to EPA.
(D) Termination of Organic Testing:
Blanchard must continue testing as required under Paragraph (3)(B) for organic constituents in
Paragraph (1)(B), until the analytical results submitted under Paragraph (3)(B) show a minimum of three (3) consecutive monthly samples below the delisting levels in Paragraph (1).
Following receipt of approval from EPA in writing, Blanchard may terminate organic testing.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions:
If Blanchard significantly changes the process described in its petition or starts any processes
that generate(s) the waste that may or could affect the composition or type of waste generated as established under Paragraph (1) (by illustration, but not limitation, changes in
equipment or operating conditions of the treatment process), they must notify EPA in writing.
Blanchard may no longer handle the residual solids generated from the new process as nonhazardous until they have completed verification testing described in Paragraph (3)(A) and
(B), as appropriate, documented that valid analyses show that paragraph (1) is satisfied, and
received written approval from EPA.
(5) Stabilization Operation:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Oct 30, 2017
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\31OCP1.SGM
31OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules
50357
TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Facility
Address
Waste description
Blanchard may periodically elect to modify operating conditions to accommodate the addition of
chemical stabilization reagents during indirect thermal desorption processing. In the event
that Blanchard initiates the inclusion of stabilization during operation, they may no longer
handle the residual solids generated from the modified process as nonhazardous until the residual solids meet the delisting levels set in Paragraph (1) under initial verification testing requirements set in paragraph (3)(A) and verify that the stabilization reagents do not add additional constituents to the residual solid leachate. Following completion of modified operation,
Blanchard can resume normal operating conditions and testing requirements under Paragraph (3), which were in place prior to initiating stabilization during operation.
(6) Data Submittals:
Blanchard must submit the information described below. If Blanchard 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). Blanchard 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.’’
(7) Reopener.
(A) If, any time after disposal of the delisted waste Blanchard 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, Blanchard 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 Blanchard 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.
(8) Notification Requirements:
Blanchard 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Oct 30, 2017
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\31OCP1.SGM
31OCP1
50358
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
(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. 2017–23683 Filed 10–30–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 395
[Docket No. FMCSA–2017–0297]
Hours of Service of Drivers:
Application for Exemption; National
Pork Producers Council (NPPC)
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of application for
exemption; request for comments.
AGENCY:
FMCSA announces that the
National Pork Producers Council
(NPPC) has requested an exemption
from the requirement that a motor
carrier require each of its drivers to use
an electronic logging device (ELD) no
later than December 18, 2017, to record
the driver’s hours-of-service (HOS).
NPPC states it requests the exemption
for all livestock haulers as defined in
the application (i.e., transporters of
livestock, poultry, aquaculture, and
insects) to address an incompatibility
between the FMCSA’s HOS rules and
the current structure and realities of the
U.S. livestock industry. NPPC states that
the livestock haulers will not be
prepared to meet the December 18,
2017, compliance date for installing
ELDs. NPPC believes that the
exemption, if granted, would achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or
greater than, the level that would be
achieved absent such exemption.
FMCSA requests public comment on
NPPC’s application for exemption.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before November 30, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Number
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Oct 30, 2017
Jkt 244001
*
*
FMCSA–2017–0297 by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. See the Public
Participation and Request for Comments
section below for further information.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building,
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12–
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251
• Each submission must include the
Agency name and the docket number for
this notice. Note that DOT posts all
comments received without change to
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a
comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at
any time or visit Room W12–140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The on-line FDMS is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5
U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its
rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any
personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information concerning this notice,
contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA
Driver and Carrier Operations Division;
Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone: 614–942–
6477. Email: MCPSD@dot.gov. If you
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
*
have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone (202) 366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
FMCSA encourages you to participate
by submitting comments and related
materials.
Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA–2017–0297), indicate
the specific section of this document to
which the comment applies, and
provide a reason for suggestions or
recommendations. You may submit
your comments and material online or
by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include
your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the
body of your document so the Agency
can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
To submit your comments online, go
to www.regulations.gov and put the
docket number, ‘‘FMCSA–2017–0297’’
in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box, and click
‘‘Search.’’ When the new screen
appears, click on ‘‘Comment Now!’’
button and type your comment into the
text box in the following screen. Choose
whether you are submitting your
comment as an individual or on behalf
of a third party and then submit. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound
format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail
and would like to know that they
reached the facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. FMCSA will consider all
comments and material received during
the comment period and may grant or
not grant this application based on your
comments.
E:\FR\FM\31OCP1.SGM
31OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 31, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50348-50358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23683]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556; FRL-9970-10-Region 6]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
grant a petition submitted by Blanchard Refining Company LLC--
(Blanchard) to exclude (or delist) the residual solids generated from
the reclamation of oil bearing hazardous secondary materials (OBSMs)
on-site at Blanchard's Galveston Bay Refinery (GBR), located in Texas
City, Texas from the lists of hazardous wastes. EPA used the Delisting
Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) Version 3.0.35 in the evaluation of the
impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the environment.
DATES: We will accept comments until November 30, 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 November 15,
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-2017-0556, 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
[[Page 50349]]
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 Blanchard Refinery petition, contact Michelle Peace at 214-665-7430
or by email at [email protected].
Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by November 15, 2017.
The request must contain the information described in 40 CFR 260.20(d).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Blanchard 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 Blanchard's petitioned waste
is non-hazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. EPA
would also conclude that Blanchard's reclamation 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 Blanchard 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 Blanchard petition EPA to delist?
B. Who is Blanchard and what process does it use to generate the
petitioned waste?
C. How did Blanchard sample and analyze the data in this
petition?
D. What were the results of Blanchard's sample analysis?
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
F. What did EPA conclude about Blanchard'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 Blanchard 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
Blanchard to have the residual solids excluded, or delisted from the
definition of a hazardous waste. The residual solids are listed as
F037. Blanchard's residual solids are listed as a hazardous waste,
based on the potential presence of Appendix VII inorganic constituents
of concern, lead and chromium, and Appendix VII organic constituents of
concern benzene, benzo(a)pyrene and chrysene.
B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this delisting?
Blanchard's petition requests an exclusion from the F037 waste
listing pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. Blanchard does not
believe that the petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA
listed it. Blanchard 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
Blanchard is based on the information submitted in support of this
rule, including descriptions of the wastes and analytical data
resulting from Blanchard's delisting demonstration conducted on the
petitioned waste.
C. How will Blanchard manage the waste if it is delisted?
If the residual solids are delisted, contingent upon approval of
the delisting petition, storage containers with Blanchard's delisted
residual solids 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
[[Page 50350]]
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 Blanchard transports the delisted waste to or manages the delisted
waste in any state with delisting authorization, Blanchard must obtain
delisting authorization from that state before it can manage the
delisted 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 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 wastes did Blanchard petition EPA to Delist?
In June 2017, Blanchard petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists of
hazardous wastes contained in Sec. Sec. 261.31 and 261.32, residual
solids (F037) generated during reclamation activities conducted at its
GBR facility located in Texas City, Texas. The waste falls under the
classification of listed waste pursuant to Sec. Sec. 261.31 and
261.32. Specifically, in its petition, Blanchard requested that EPA
grant a conditional exclusion for the annual generation volume of
20,000 cubic yards of F037 residual solids.
B. Who is Blanchard and what process does it use to generate the
petitioned waste?
Blanchard owns and operates the GBR facility, located in Texas
City, Galveston County, Texas. Blanchard is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Marathon Petroleum Company LP. Blanchard's demonstration evaluated
representative samples of its residual solids resulting from the
indirect thermal desorption reclamation of OBSMs managed on-site at
Blanchard's GBR facility. OBSMs managed on-site at Blanchard's GBR
facility result from separate management practices within GBR's
petroleum refining operations. Blanchard's approved Sampling and
Analysis Plan (SAP) identified three (3) management practices, which
result in the generation of three (3) corresponding categories of OBSMs
with unique physical properties. The three (3) identified categories of
Blanchard's OBSMs include, Category 1, Oil/Water/Solid Separation
Sludges (K048 through K052, F037 and F038); Category 2, Crude Oil and
Clarified Slurry Oil Sediments (K169 and K170); and Category 3,
Stabilized Spent Hydrotreating and Hydrorefining Catalysts (K171 and
K172).
Blanchard's demonstration utilized a commercial indirectly-fired
thermal desorption unit (``ITDU'') located at US Ecology Texas'
(``USET'') permitted commercial facility in Robstown, Texas. Blanchard
considered it prudent to
[[Page 50351]]
utilize USET's ITDU to avoid having to invest the significant capital
and resources required to site and construct a full-scale ITDU on-site
at Blanchard's GBR facility, prior to receiving an approved delisting
determination. The EPA acknowledged Blanchard's use of USET's
commercial ITDU to perform its demonstration, under its approved SAP.
USET's commercial ITDU was designed and constructed by TD*X
Associates LP (``TD*X''), located in Beaumont, Texas. TD*X currently
operates the commercial ITDU on-site at USET's Robstown facility, under
contract with USET. USET has extensive experience in the management and
processing of Blanchard's OBSMs, and is currently contracted with
Blanchard to provide such services at USET's Robstown facility.
Blanchard has entered into a services agreement with US Ecology
Thermal Services LLC (``USETS'') to provide and operate an ITDU, on-
site at its GBR facility. USETS is the refinery services affiliate of
USET. Blanchard's proposed ITDU will be designed, constructed and
operated by TD*X, as part of USETS's services agreement with Blanchard.
The processing capabilities, efficiencies and capacity of Blanchard's
proposed ITDU are comparable to USET's commercial ITDU that was
utilized under Blanchard's demonstration.
C. How did Blanchard sample and analyze the data in this petition?
To support its petition, Blanchard conducted individual sampling
events on residual solids resulting from the reclamation of Blanchard's
three (3) identified categories of OBSMs. Each separate sampling event
consisted of four (4) composite samples taken during a 24-hour period
of representative operation. Each composite sample was comprised of
individual grab samples (i.e. a minimum of four), obtained during
separate six (6) hour periods of the 24-hour sampling event.
Compositing of samples and performance of quality control requirements
were performed by Blanchard's selected analytical laboratory,
TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc. (``TestAmerica''). Blanchard submitted:
Historical information on waste generation and management practices;
and analytical results from twelve samples for total and TCLP
concentrations of constituents of concern (COC)s.
D. What were the results of Blanchard's sample analyses?
EPA believes that the descriptions of the Blanchard analytical
characterization provide a reasonable basis to grant Blanchard's
petition for an exclusion of the residual solids. EPA believes the data
submitted in support of the petition show the residual solids is non-
hazardous. Analytical data for the residual solids samples were used in
the DRAS to develop delisting levels. The residual solids from Category
3 can only be delisted if stabilization of the residual solids occur.
Data from the stabilized Category 3 residual solids demonstrate the
concentrations from the stabilized residuals meet the delisting
requirements. The data summaries for COCs are presented in Table I. EPA
has reviewed the sampling procedures used by Blanchard and has
determined that it satisfies EPA criteria for collecting representative
samples of the variations in constituent concentrations in the residual
solids. In addition, the data submitted in support of the petition show
that COCs in Blanchard's waste are presently below health-based levels
used in the delisting decision-making. EPA believes that Blanchard has
successfully demonstrated that the residual solids are non-hazardous.
Table 1--Analytical Results/Maximum Allowable Delisting Concentration
[Residual solids--Blanchard Refining Company LLC, Texas City, Texas]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum total Maximum TCLP Maximum TCLP
Constituent concentration concentration delisting
(mg/kg) (mg/L) level (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone......................................................... 0.185 0.226 520.0
Antimony........................................................ 53.7 0.226 0.599
Anthracene...................................................... 0.488 <0.0125 25.993
Arsenic......................................................... 222.0 0.277 0.424
Barium.......................................................... 950.0 0.221 36.0
Benzene......................................................... 1.25 <0.00280 0.077
Benzo (a) anthracene............................................ 0.512 <0.0106 0.070
Benzo(a) pyrene................................................. 0.0298 <0.0123 2.634
Benzo (b) flouranthene.......................................... 0.286 <0.0125 22.43
Beryllium....................................................... 8.61 0.235 1.764
Cadmium......................................................... 0.441 <0.00280 0.217
Chromium........................................................ 120.0 0.0550 3.06
Chrysene........................................................ 0.272 <0.0103 7.006
Cobalt.......................................................... 242.0 0.818 0.902
Copper.......................................................... 639.0 <0.0813 21.527
Cyanide......................................................... 99.4 <0.0702 3.08
Diethyl Phthalate............................................... 0.493 <0.0130 990
Flouranthrene................................................... 0.405 <0.0122 2.462
Flourene........................................................ 0.420 <0.00710 4.91
Lead............................................................ 963.0 <0.0219 0.984
2, methylphenol................................................. 1.31 <0.00710 28.952
3,4 methylphenol................................................ 2.18 <0.00675 28.952
Methylene Chloride.............................................. 0.827 0.00756 0.0790
Methyl Naphthalene.............................................. 0.365 <0.0129 0.727
Mercury......................................................... 0.0403 0.000104 0.068
Naphthalene..................................................... 0.874 <0.0110 0.0327
Nickel.......................................................... 29,000 <0.00800 13.5
Phenanthrene.................................................... 2.16 <0.0112 10.626
Phenol.......................................................... 6.55 0.00813 173
Pyrene.......................................................... 1.76 <0.0150 4.446
[[Page 50352]]
Pyridine........................................................ 0.197 <0.0108 0.5775
Selenium........................................................ 13.5 0.0530 1.0
Silver.......................................................... 1.86 <0.0129 5.0
Toluene......................................................... 0.670 <0.00275 15.1
Tin............................................................. 13.8 <0.00590 387
Thallium........................................................ 110.0 0.0220 0.0366
Vanadium........................................................ 75,400 0.215 4.6436
Zinc............................................................ 1920.0 0.487 197
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 landfill is the
most reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for Blanchard'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
Blanchard's petitioned waste on human health and the environment. A
copy of this software can be found on the world wide web at f://
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
COCs tested are likely to be present or formed as reaction products or
by-products in Blanchard's waste.
F. What did EPA conclude about Blanchard's waste analysis?
EPA concluded, after reviewing Blanchard's processes, that no other
hazardous COCs, other than those for which tested, are likely to be
present or formed as reaction products or by-products in the waste. In
addition, on the basis of explanations and analytical data provided by
Blanchard, 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 Blanchard'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 Blanchard's petitioned waste is unlikely. Therefore,
no appreciable air releases are likely from Blanchard's residual solids
under any likely disposal conditions. EPA evaluated the potential
hazards resulting from the unlikely scenario of airborne exposure to
hazardous constituents released from
[[Page 50353]]
Blanchard's residual solids 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 Blanchard's residual solids.
H. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
The descriptions of Blanchard'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 Blanchard's residual solids will not impose
any threat to human health and the environment.
Thus, EPA believes Blanchard should be granted an exclusion for the
residual solids. EPA believes the data submitted in support of the
petition show Blanchard's residual solids is non-hazardous. The data
submitted in support of the petition show that constituents in
Blanchard'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 Blanchard has
successfully demonstrated that the residual solids sludge is non-
hazardous.
EPA therefore, proposes to grant an exclusion to Blanchard for the
residual solids 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
residual solids.
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, Blanchard, 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
Blanchard must test the residual solids, 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 Blanchard'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 Blanchard manages
and disposes of any residual solids that contains hazardous levels of
inorganic and organic constituents according to Subtitle C of RCRA.
Managing the residual solids 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 of Blanchard's residual solids as non-hazardous cannot begin
until the verification sampling is completed.
(3) Verification, Subsequent, and Annual Testing Requirements
Blanchard must complete a rigorous verification testing program on
the residual solids 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 residual solids are discharged from
Blanchard's reclamation process, prior to containment and disposal. The
volume of residual solids generated may not exceed 20,000 cubic yards
of sludge material annually. Any volume of residual solids generated in
excess of 20,000 cubic yards during any twelve-month period 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 residual solids. If the data
from the verification testing program demonstrate that the residual
solids meet the delisting levels, Blanchard may commence disposing of
the residual solids as non-hazardous solid waste. Blanchard will notify
EPA in writing, if and when it begins and ends disposal of the delisted
residual solids.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions
If Blanchard significantly changes the reclamation process
described in its petition or starts any processes that generate(s) the
waste that may or could affect the composition or type of waste
generated as established under Paragraph (1) (by illustration, but not
limitation, changes in equipment or operating conditions of the
treatment process), they must notify EPA in writing. Blanchard may no
longer handle the residual solids generated from the new process as
non-hazardous until they have completed verification testing described
in Paragraph (3)(A) and (B).
(5) Stabilization Operations
Blanchard describes an application where it may periodically elect
to modify operating conditions under its reclamation process to
accommodate the addition of chemical stabilization reagents. The
facility also provided data on stabilized materials as part of its
petition. In the event Blanchard initiates the inclusion of
stabilization during operation of its reclamation process, they may no
longer handle the residual solids generated from the modified process
as non-hazardous until the residual solids meet the delisting levels
set in Paragraph (1) under initial verification testing requirements
set in Paragraph (3)(A) and verify that no additional constituents are
leaching from the stabilized residual solids. Following completion of
modified operation of its reclamation process, Blanchard can resume
normal operating conditions and testing requirements under Paragraph
(3), which were in place prior to initiating the addition of
stabilization.
(6) Data Submittals
To provide appropriate documentation that Blanchard's residual
solids meet the delisting levels, Blanchard 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 Blanchard
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 the
volume of 20,000 cubic yards of residual solids generated annually at
Blanchard's GBR facility after successful verification testing. EPA
would require Blanchard to
[[Page 50354]]
file a new delisting petition for any volume of residual solids
generated during any twelve-month period in excess of the 20,000 cubic
yards, and manage the excess volume of residual solids as hazardous
waste until EPA grants a new exclusion.
When this exclusion becomes final, Blanchard's management of the
residual solids covered by this petition would be relieved from
Subtitle C jurisdiction, and the residual solids from Blanchard will be
disposed of in an authorized, solid waste landfill (e.g. RCRA Subtitle
D landfill, commercial/industrial solid waste landfill, etc.).
(7) Reopener
The purpose of Paragraph (6) of the exclusion language is to
require Blanchard to disclose new or different information related to a
condition at Blanchard's facility or disposal of the waste, if it is
pertinent to the delisting. Blanchard must also use this procedure, if
the annual testing fails to meet the levels found in Paragraph (1).
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 Blanchard 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 delisting 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).
(8) Notification Requirements
In order to adequately track wastes that have been delisted, EPA is
requiring that Blanchard provide a one-time notification to any state
regulatory agency through which or to which the delisted waste is being
carried. Blanchard must provide this notification sixty (60) days
before commencing this activity.
B. What happens if Blanchard violates the terms and conditions?
If Blanchard 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 Blanchard 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. Submit
your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556, 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.
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
exclusion?
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 are 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,
[[Page 50355]]
as specified in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for this
belief is that the Agency used DRAS, which considers health and safety
risks to children, to calculate the maximum allowable concentrations
for this rule. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3
of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'', (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary
steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential
litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report which includes a copy of the rule to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of
rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not
required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular applicability. Executive Order
(EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 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
record-keeping requirements.
Dated: October 17, 2017.
Wren Stenger,
Director, Multimedia Division, Region 6.
For the reasons set forth 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 ``Blanchard
Refining Company LLC'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Waste Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 1--Waste Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Blanchard Refining Company LLC.... Texas City, TX............... Residual solids (EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers
F037) generated at a maximum rate of as
20,000 cubic yards annually.
For the exclusion to be valid, Blanchard must
implement a verification testing program
that meets the following Paragraphs:
(1) All leachable concentrations for those
constituents must not exceed the following
levels measured as mg/L (ppm). The
petitioner must use an acceptable leaching
method, for example SW-846, Method 1311, to
measure constituents in the residual solids
leachate.
(A) Inorganic Constituents of Concern:
Antimony--0.5985; Arsenic--0.424; Barium--
36; Beryllium--1.74; Chromium--3.06; Cobalt--
0.902; Lead--0.984; Nickel--13.5; Selenium--
1.0; Vanadium--4.64, Zinc--197. Mercury--
0.068.
(B) Organic Constituents of Concern: Acetone--
520.0; Anthracene--25.993; Benzene--0.077;
Benzo(a)pyrene--2.634, Chrysene--7.006;
Methylene Chloride--0.0790; Phenanthrene--
10.626; Phenol--173; Pyrene--4.446.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
(A) Blanchard must manage and dispose its
residual solids as hazardous waste generated
under Subtitle C of RCRA, until they have
completed verification testing described in
Paragraph (3)(A) and (B), as appropriate,
and valid analyses show that paragraph (1)
is satisfied.
(B) Levels of constituents measured in the
samples of the residual solids that do not
exceed the levels set forth in Paragraph (1)
are nonhazardous. Blanchard can manage and
dispose the nonhazardous residual solids
according to all applicable solid waste
regulations.
[[Page 50356]]
(C) If constituent levels in a sample exceed
any of the delisting levels set in Paragraph
(1), Blanchard must retreat or stabilize the
residual solids represented by the sample
exceeding the delisting levels, until it
meets the levels in paragraph (1). Blanchard
must repeat the analyses of the retreated
residual solids.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements:
Blanchard must perform analytical testing by
sampling and analyzing the Residual solids
as follows:
(i) Collect representative samples of the
Residual solids for analysis of all
constituents listed in paragraph (1) prior
to disposal.
(ii) The samples for verification 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 Blanchard residual
solids are representative for all
constituents listed in paragraph (1).
Blanchard must perform sample collection and
analyses, including quality control
procedures, according to SW-846
methodologies.
(A) Initial Verification Testing:
After EPA grants the final exclusion,
Blanchard must do the following:
(i) Collect four (4) representative composite
samples of the residual solids at weekly
intervals after EPA grants the final
exclusion. The first composite samples may
be taken at any time after EPA grants the
final approval. Sampling should be performed
in accordance with the sampling plan
approved by EPA in support of the exclusion.
(ii) Analyze the samples for all constituents
listed in paragraph (1). Any composite
sample taken that exceeds the delisting
levels listed in paragraph (1) for the
residual solids must be disposed as
hazardous waste in accordance with the
applicable hazardous waste requirements.
(iii) Within thirty (30) days after
successfully completing its initial
verification testing, Blanchard may report
its analytical test data for its initial
four (4) weekly composite samples to EPA. If
levels of constituents measured in the
samples of the residual solids do not exceed
the levels set forth in paragraph (1) of
this exclusion, Blanchard can manage and
dispose the non-hazardous residual solids
according to all applicable solid waste
regulations.
(B) Subsequent Verification Testing:
If Blanchard completes initial verification
testing requirements, specified in paragraph
(3)(A), and no sample contains a constituent
at a level which exceeds the limits set
forth in paragraph (1), Blanchard may begin
subsequent verification testing as follows:
(i) Blanchard must test representative
composite samples of the residual solids for
all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at
least once per month.
(ii) The samples for the monthly testing
shall be a representative composite sample
according to appropriate methods.
(iii) Within thirty (30) days after
completing each monthly sampling, Blanchard
will report its analytical test data to EPA.
(C) Annual Verification Testing:
If levels of constituents measured in the
samples of the residual solids do not exceed
the levels set forth in paragraph (1) of
this exclusion for six (6) consecutive
months of subsequent verification testing,
Blanchard may begin annual testing as
follows:
(i) Blanchard must test representative
composite samples of the residual solids for
all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at
least once per calendar year.
(ii) The samples for the annual testing shall
be a representative composite sample
according to appropriate methods.
(iii) Within sixty (60) days after completing
each annual sampling, Blanchard will report
its analytical test data to EPA.
(D) Termination of Organic Testing:
Blanchard must continue testing as required
under Paragraph (3)(B) for organic
constituents in Paragraph (1)(B), until the
analytical results submitted under Paragraph
(3)(B) show a minimum of three (3)
consecutive monthly samples below the
delisting levels in Paragraph (1). Following
receipt of approval from EPA in writing,
Blanchard may terminate organic testing.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions:
If Blanchard significantly changes the
process described in its petition or starts
any processes that generate(s) the waste
that may or could affect the composition or
type of waste generated as established under
Paragraph (1) (by illustration, but not
limitation, changes in equipment or
operating conditions of the treatment
process), they must notify EPA in writing.
Blanchard may no longer handle the residual
solids generated from the new process as
nonhazardous until they have completed
verification testing described in Paragraph
(3)(A) and (B), as appropriate, documented
that valid analyses show that paragraph (1)
is satisfied, and received written approval
from EPA.
(5) Stabilization Operation:
[[Page 50357]]
Blanchard may periodically elect to modify
operating conditions to accommodate the
addition of chemical stabilization reagents
during indirect thermal desorption
processing. In the event that Blanchard
initiates the inclusion of stabilization
during operation, they may no longer handle
the residual solids generated from the
modified process as nonhazardous until the
residual solids meet the delisting levels
set in Paragraph (1) under initial
verification testing requirements set in
paragraph (3)(A) and verify that the
stabilization reagents do not add additional
constituents to the residual solid leachate.
Following completion of modified operation,
Blanchard can resume normal operating
conditions and testing requirements under
Paragraph (3), which were in place prior to
initiating stabilization during operation.
(6) Data Submittals:
Blanchard must submit the information
described below. If Blanchard 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). Blanchard 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. Sec. 1001 and 42
U.S.C. Sec. 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.''
(7) Reopener.
(A) If, any time after disposal of the
delisted waste Blanchard 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, Blanchard 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 Blanchard 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.
(8) Notification Requirements:
Blanchard 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.
[[Page 50358]]
(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. 2017-23683 Filed 10-30-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
