Hazardous Waste Management System; Proposed Exclusion for Identifying and Listing Hazardous Waste, 46126-46135 [2018-19595]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
46126
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
approved under OMB control number
0910–0139.
VIII. Federalism
We have analyzed this proposed rule
in accordance with the principles set
forth in E.O. 13132. We have
determined that this proposed rule does
not contain policies that 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. Accordingly, we
conclude that the rule does not contain
policies that have federalism
implications as defined in the E.O. and,
consequently, a federalism summary
impact statement is not required.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
IX. Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
We have analyzed this proposed rule
in accordance with the principles set
forth in E.O. 13175. We have tentatively
determined that the rule does not
contain policies that would have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian Tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
The Agency solicits comments from
tribal officials on any potential impact
on Indian Tribes from this proposed
action.
5. FDA Guidance for Industry on ‘‘Sterile
Drug Products Produced by Aseptic
Processing—Current Good
Manufacturing Practice,’’ September
2004; available at https://www.fda.gov/
downloads/drugs/guidance
complianceregulatoryinformation/
guidances/ucm070342.pdf.
6. United States Pharmacopeial Convention
(USP 40), Sterilization and Sterility
Assurance of Compendial Articles
<1211>, 2017.
7. FDA Drug Safety Communication, ‘‘FDA
Requests Label Changes and Single-Use
Packaging for Some Over-the-Counter
Topical Antiseptic Products to Decrease
Risk of Infection,’’ November 13, 2013;
available at https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/
DrugSafety/ucm374711.htm.
8. FDA Preliminary Regulatory Impact
Analysis, Repeal of Regulation Requiring
an Approved New Drug Application for
Drugs Sterilized by Irradiation; https://
www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/
ReportsManualsForms/Reports/
EconomicAnalyses/default.htm.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 310
Administrative practice and
procedure, Drugs, Labeling, Medical
devices, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public
Health Service Act and under authority
delegated to the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs, it is proposed that 21 CFR
part 310 be amended as follows:
X. References
The following references are on
display in the Dockets Management
Staff (see ADDRESSES) and are available
for viewing by interested persons
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday; they are also available
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified
the website addresses, as of the date this
document publishes in the Federal
Register, but websites are subject to
change over time.
PART 310—NEW DRUGS
1. Jacobs, G., ‘‘Validation of the Radiation
Sterilization of Pharmaceuticals.’’ In: J.
Agalloco and F. J. Carleton (eds.),
Validation of Pharmaceutical Processes
(3rd Ed.) Informa USA, New York, 2007.
2. Microbiology Sub-Committee, Radiation
Sterilization Task Force, Parenteral Drug
Association, Technical Report No. 11,
‘‘Sterilization of Parenterals by Gamma
Radiation,’’ Journal of Parenteral Science
and Technology, 42 (3S), 1988, available
at: https://store.pda.org/ProductCatalog/
Product.aspx?ID=1170.
3. United States Pharmacopeial Convention
(USP 40), Radiation Sterilization
<1229.10>, 2017.
4. United States Pharmacopeial Convention
(USP 40), Sterilization of Compendial
Articles <1229>, 2017.
§ 310.502 Certain drugs accorded new
drug status through rulemaking
procedures.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Sep 11, 2018
Jkt 244001
1. The authority citation for part 310
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352,
353, 355, 360b–360f, 360j, 360hh–360ss,
361(a), 371, 374, 375, 379e, 379k–1; 42 U.S.C.
216, 241, 242(a), 262.
2. In § 310.502, revise paragraph (a)
introductory text and remove and
reserve paragraph (a)(11) to read as
follows:
■
(a) The drugs listed in this paragraph
have been determined by rulemaking
procedures to be new drugs within the
meaning of section 201(p) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. An
approved new drug application under
section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act and part 314 of this
chapter is required for marketing the
following drugs:
*
*
*
*
*
(11) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Dated: September 7, 2018.
Scott Gottlieb,
Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
[FR Doc. 2018–19845 Filed 9–11–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R10–RCRA–2018–0538; SW–FRL–
9982–05—Region 10]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Proposed Exclusion for
Identifying and Listing Hazardous
Waste
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for
comment.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (also, ‘‘the Agency’’ or ‘‘we’’ in
this preamble) is proposing to grant a
petition submitted by Sandvik Special
Metals (Sandvik), in Kennewick,
Washington to exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) up
to 1,500 cubic yards of F006 wastewater
treatment sludge per year from the list
of federal hazardous wastes.
The Agency is proposing to grant the
petition based on an evaluation of
waste-specific information provided by
Sandvik. This proposed decision, if
finalized, conditionally excludes the
petitioned waste from the requirements
of hazardous waste regulations under
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act.
We conclude that Sandvik’s
petitioned waste is nonhazardous with
respect to the original federal listing
criteria and that there are no other
factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which
the waste was listed that would warrant
retaining the waste as a hazardous
waste. Subject to state-only
requirements within the state of
Washington, or federally-authorized or
state-only requirements in other states
where the subject wastes may be
disposed of, Sandvik’s petitioned waste
may be disposed of in a Subtitle D
landfill which is permitted, licensed, or
registered by a State to manage
industrial solid waste.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 12, 2018. Requests for
an informal hearing must reach the EPA
by September 27, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
RCRA–2018–0538 by one of the
following methods:
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: To Dr. David Bartus, Office of
Air and Waste, EPA, Region 10, 1200
6th Avenue, Suite 155, OAW–150,
Seattle, Washington 98101.
• Hand Delivery: To Dr. David Bartus,
Office of Air and Waste, EPA, Region
10, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 155, OAW–
150, Seattle, Washington 98101. Such
deliveries are only accepted during
normal hours of operation. Please
contact David Bartus at (206) 553–2804.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R10–RCRA–2018–
0538. The EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov
website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’
system, which means the EPA will not
know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an
email comment directly to the EPA
without going through
www.regulations.gov your email address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made
available on the internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, the EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
physical media you submit. If the EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Any person may request an informal
hearing on this proposed decision by
filing a request with Timothy Hamlin,
Director, Office of Air and Waste, EPA,
Region 10, 1200 6th Ave., Suite 155,
OAW–150, Seattle, Washington 98101.
The request must contain the
information prescribed in 40 Code of
Federal Regulations CFR 260.20(d).
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information may not be publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Sep 11, 2018
Jkt 244001
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the RCRA Records Center, 16th floor,
U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 6th Avenue,
Suite 155, OAW–150, Seattle,
Washington 98101. This facility is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. We recommend you telephone
David Bartus at (206) 553–2804 before
visiting the Region 10 office. The public
may copy material from the regulatory
docket at 15 cents per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Dr.
David Bartus, EPA, Region 10, 1200 6th
Avenue, Suite 155, OAW–150, Seattle,
Washington 98070; telephone number:
(206) 553–2804; fax number (206) 553–
8509; email address: bartus.dave@
epa.gov.
As discussed in Section V below, the
Washington State Department of
Ecology is evaluating Sandvik’s petition
under state authority. Information on
Ecology’s action may be found at
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/
SummaryPages/1804023.html.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
II. Background
A. What is a listed waste?
B. What is a delisting petition?
C. What factors must the EPA consider in
deciding whether to grant a delisting
petition?
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What waste did Sandvik petition EPA
to delist?
B. How does Sandvik generate the waste?
C. How did Sandvik sample and analyze
the waste?
D. What were the results of Sandvik’s
analysis of the waste?
E. How did the EPA evaluate the risk of
delisting this waste?
F. What did the EPA conclude about
Sandvik’s waste?
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. When would the EPA finalize the
proposed delisting exclusion?
B. How will Sandvik manage the waste if
it is delisted?
C. What are the maximum allowable
concentrations of hazardous constituents
in the waste?
D. How frequently must Sandvik test the
waste?
E. What data must Sandvik submit?
F. What happens if Sandvik’s waste fails to
meet the conditions of the exclusion?
G. What must Sandvik do if the process
changes?
V. How would this action affect states?
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
46127
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
The EPA is proposing to grant the
petition submitted by Sandvik Special
Metals (Sandvik) located in Kennewick,
Washington to exclude or delist an
annual volume of up to 1,500 cubic
yards of F006 wastewater treatment
sludge from the lists of hazardous waste
set forth in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations CFR 261.31. Sandvik claims
that the petitioned waste does not meet
the criteria for which the EPA listed it,
and that there are no additional
constituents or factors which could
cause the waste to be hazardous.
Based on our review described in
section III, we agree with the petitioner
that the waste is nonhazardous. We
reviewed the description of the process
which generates the waste and the
analytical data submitted by Sandvik.
We believe that the petitioned waste
does not meet the criteria for which the
waste was listed, and that there are no
other factors which might cause the
waste to be hazardous.
II. Background
A. What is a listed waste?
The EPA published an amended list
of hazardous wastes from nonspecific
and specific sources on January 16,
1981, as part of its final and interim
final regulations implementing § 3001 of
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). The EPA has amended this
list several times and published it in 40
CFR 261.31 and 261.32.
We list these wastes as hazardous
because: (1) They typically and
frequently exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous wastes
identified in subpart C of part 261 (that
is, ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity,
and toxicity) or (2) they meet the criteria
for listing contained in § 261.11(a)(2) or
(3).
B. What is a delisting petition?
Individual waste streams may vary
depending on raw materials, industrial
processes, and other factors. Thus,
while a waste described in the
regulations generally is hazardous, a
specific waste from an individual
facility meeting the listing description
may not be hazardous.
A procedure to exclude or delist a
waste is provided in 40 CFR 260.20 and
260.22 which allows a person or a
facility to submit a petition to the EPA
or to an authorized state demonstrating
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
46128
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
that a specific waste from a particular
generating facility is not hazardous.1
In a delisting petition, the petitioner
must show that a waste does not meet
any of the criteria for listed wastes in 40
CFR 261.11 and that the waste does not
exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics of ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity, or toxicity. The petitioner
must present sufficient information for
us to decide whether any factors in
addition to those for which the waste
was listed warrant retaining it as a
hazardous waste. (See § 260.22, 42
U.S.C. 6921(f) and the background
documents for the listed wastes.)
If a delisting petition is granted, the
generator remains obligated under
RCRA to confirm that the waste remains
nonhazardous according to the
conditions of the delisting.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
C. What factors must EPA consider in
deciding whether to grant a delisting
petition?
In reviewing this petition, we
considered the original listing criteria
and the additional factors required by
the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See
§ 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and
40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)–(4). We evaluated
the petitioned waste against the listing
criteria and factors cited in
§ 261.11(a)(2) and (3).
Besides considering the criteria in 40
CFR 260.22(a), 261.11(a)(2) and (3), 42
U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background
documents for the listed wastes, the
EPA must consider any factors
(including additional constituents) other
than those for which we listed the waste
if these additional factors could cause
the waste to be hazardous.
Our proposed decision to grant the
petition to delist the waste from
Sandvik’s Kennewick, Washington
facility is based on our evaluation of the
waste for factors or criteria which could
cause the waste to be hazardous. These
factors included: (1) Whether the waste
is considered acutely toxic; (2) the
toxicity of the constituents; (3) the
concentration of the constituents in the
waste; (4) the tendency of the
constituents to migrate and to
bioaccumulate; (5) the persistence in the
environment of any constituents once
released from the waste; (6) plausible
and specific types of management of the
petitioned waste; (7) the quantity of
1 Washington State has promulgated regulations
at WAC 173–303–910(3) corresponding to the cited
federal regulation. However, Washington State has
not received final authorization to implement these
regulations in lieu of the federal program. As such,
they are effective concurrent with 40 CFR 260.20
and 260.22 on a state-only basis.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Sep 11, 2018
Jkt 244001
waste produced; and (8) waste
variability.
The EPA must also consider as
hazardous wastes mixtures containing
listed hazardous wastes and wastes
derived from treating, storing, or
disposing of listed hazardous waste. See
40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i),
called the ‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derivedfrom’’ rules, respectively. Mixture and
derived-from wastes are also eligible for
exclusion but remain hazardous until
excluded.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What waste did Sandvik petition the
EPA to delist?
On April 27, 2018, Sandvik petitioned
the EPA to exclude an annual volume of
up to 1,500 cubic yards of F006
wastewater treatment sludges generated
at its facility located in Kennewick,
Washington from the list of hazardous
wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31.
F006 is defined in § 261.31 as
‘‘Wastewater treatment sludges from
electroplating operations . . .’’ Sandvik
claims that the petitioned waste does
not meet the criteria for which F006 was
listed (i.e., cadmium, hexavalent
chromium, nickel and complexed
cyanide) and that there are no other
factors which would cause the waste to
be hazardous.
B. How does Sandvik generate the
waste?
Sandvik Special Metals fabricates
specialty titanium and zirconium tubing
for the aeronautical, medical and
nuclear industries. The filter cake waste
material that is the subject of this
delisting action is the combined end
waste from the wastewater treatment
facility (WWTF) that manages F006
chemical etching wastes, and a separate
coolant process waste stream associated
with Sandvik’s manufacturing process.
A detailed description of the processes
which contribute to the filter cake,
including the wastewater treatment and
the manufacturing processes, associated
alloys and process materials, is
provided below.
Titanium and zirconium alloys are the
main raw materials for the
manufacturing process, with titanium
being used for most products and
zirconium being used only on special
orders for the nuclear industry. In recent
years, zirconium accounted for less than
one percent of the total production,
however, zirconium has accounted for
up to 10 to 20 percent of the production
volume historically. The manufacturing
processes meet strict industry standards
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
for Sandvik customers and are
consistent at the Kennewick facility.
The standard tube making process for
titanium (Ti) and zirconium (Zr) alloyed
tubing includes three main steps. See
Figure 1 in Sandvik’s delisting petition.
The alloys used in the process arrive at
the Kennewick facility in the form of
large diameter rough tubing (either
extrusions or Trex [which is an
extrusion that has been reduced once])
from one of two suppliers, Sandvik SZ
in Sweden or ATI in Oregon. In the first
tube-making process, the extrusions or
Trex go through multiple cold pilger
steps to reduce the diameter size of the
tubing into seamless hollow metal
tubing. The cold pilgering process uses
roll dies (presses) and a tapered mandrel
(the rod that supports the inside of the
tube during formation) to reduce the
size of the tubing cross section. A fatty
acid coolant/lubricant is used to manage
heat generation during the process. The
number of cold pilgering steps is
dependent on the available starting
materials and final tube size. After each
cold pilger step, the interior of the tube
is cleaned in a hot alkaline solution to
remove the fatty acid coolant/lubricant
used in the forming process, resulting in
the generation of an alkaline rinsing
solution that is discharged to the WWTF
and a small amount of used fatty acid
coolant/lubricant, which is pumped to
an underground storage tank and then
batch transferred to the WWTF.
The second step in the tube forming
process is a high temperature anneal
step performed to relieve stress on the
metal that can make it brittle after cold
forming. Annealing also improves the
homogeneity of the metal and can
improve the ductile and toughness
properties. No waste is generated during
the annealing process.
During the third step, after annealing,
the hollows, or final tubes are rotary
straightened and cleaned in the hot
alkaline solution again to remove the
straightening lubrication. The cleaned
hollows are open dip etched in an
acidic solution to remove a small
amount of metal from both the outer
diameter (OD) and inner diameter (ID)
surfaces. The acidic waste and rinse
water from the hollow etch process is
discharged to the WWTF. This acid etch
step is the basis for application of the
F006 listing to Sandvik’s WWTF sludge,
as discussed in the following section.
If the next pass is to produce a smaller
OD or thinner wall hollow, the above
three-step process is repeated until the
desired sizing is accomplished resulting
in a final tube.
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
C. How is Sandvik’s waste captured by
the F006 listing definition?
The listing definition for F006 waste
at 40 CFR 261.31 states that the source
definition of F006 wastes include:
Wastewater treatment sludges from
electroplating operations except from
the following processes: (1) Sulfuric
acid anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin
plating on carbon steel; (3) zinc plating
(segregated basis) on carbon steel; (4)
aluminum or zinc-aluminum plating on
carbon steel; (5) cleaning/stripping
associated with tin, zinc and aluminum
plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical
etching and milling of aluminum.
The EPA promulgated an interpretive
rule (51 FR 43350 (December 2, 1986))
clarifying the scope of the EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F006 contained in
the list of hazardous wastes from nonspecific sources of Subpart D of Part
261. This interpretive rule established
that:
The F006 listing is (and always has
been) therefore, inclusive of wastewater
treatment sludges from only the
following processes: (1) Common and
precious metals electroplating, except
tin, zinc (segregated basis), aluminum,
and zinc-aluminum plating on carbon
steel; (2) anodizing, except sulfuric acid
anodizing of aluminum; (3) chemical
etching and milling, except when
performed on aluminum; and (4)
cleaning and stripping, except when
associated with tin, zinc, and aluminum
plating on carbon steel.
Because the Sandvik production
process that results in generation of the
candidate WWTF sludge includes
chemical etching other than that
performed on aluminum, Sandvik’s
WWTF sludge meets the definition of
F006 listed waste.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
D. How did Sandvik sample and
analyze the petitioned waste?
Sandvik conducted a detailed
chemical analysis of their WWTF sludge
according to a written sampling and
analysis plan (SAP), provided as
Attachment 2 to the delisting petition.
This SAP included the following key
elements:
• A description of the manufacturing
and wastewater treatment processes
relevant to the petitioned waste;
• An initial identification of
Constituents of Potential Concern
(COPCs) potentially present in the
petitioned waste based on
manufacturing and wastewater
treatment processes;
• Development of sampling strategies
to address variations and periodic
fluctuations in the manufacturing and
wastewater treatment processes,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Sep 11, 2018
Jkt 244001
including obtaining representative
samples to account for variations of
alloys used in the manufacturing
process and addition of coolant/
lubricant into the filter cake.
• The proposed methodology for
evaluating the resulting data with
respect to anticipated delisting decision
criteria; and
• A Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) documenting the required
quality and quantity of the data
necessary for decisions based on them
to be within an acceptable degree of
uncertainty.
Sandvik’s SAP identified an initial
list of COPCs based on a consideration
of constituents included in the F006
hazardous waste listing and present in
the manufacturing and wastewater
treatment materials and processes. See
Section 2 and Table 5 of Attachment 2
in Sandvik’s delisting petition.
Additionally, the list of COPCs included
impurities and other constituents listed
in the alloys and in the process and
wastewater treatment chemical Safety
Data Sheets (SDS).2 Constituents were
then evaluated based on historical
detections in the filter cake waste and
compared to constituents listed in the
following RCRA regulations, as
applicable to the Kennewick facility and
this specific filter cake waste:
• Constituent for which F006 was
listed (40 CFR part 261 Appendix VII;
WAC 173–303–082) or listed as a Land
Disposal Restriction (LDR) constituent
subject to treatment for F006 or
identified as a constituent for which an
LDR Universal Treatment Standard has
been established (40 CFR 268.40 and
268.48; WAC 173–303–140) with the
exception of cyanide. Cyanide was not
retained as a COPC because there is no
documented use of cyanide at the
Kennewick facility and it was not
detected in historical filter cake
samples.
• Constituent has been historically
detected in filter cake and was present
on the Toxicity Characteristics List (40
CFR 261.24; WAC 173–303–090 Part 8),
Hazardous Constituents List (40 CFR
part 261 Appendix VIII; WAC 173–303–
9905), and/or Groundwater Monitoring
2 SDS constituent reporting requirements are
typically ingredients which have been determined
to be health hazards, and which comprise 1% or
greater of the composition, except chemicals
identified as carcinogens which are listed if the
concentrations are 0.1% or greater. In addition,
chemicals <1% (<0.1% for carcinogens) are
reported if they could be released from the product
at a concentration that would exceed an established
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OHSA) exposure limit. SDSs are prepared in
accordance with OHSA (29 CFR 1910.1200(g)) and
the Global Harmonization System.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
46129
List (40 CFR part 264 Appendix IX;
WAC 173–303–110(7)).
• According to the alloy composition,
constituent could potentially be present
in the filter cake and is listed on the
Toxicity Characteristics List (40 CFR
261.24; WAC 173–303–090(8)),
Hazardous Constituents List (40 CFR
part 261 Appendix VIII; WAC 173–303–
9905), and/or the Groundwater
Monitoring List (40 CFR part 264
Appendix IX; WAC 173–303–110 Part
7).
A constituent was not retained as a
COPC if it was not:
• Listed on potentially relevant
regulatory lists; or
• There was no documented
Kennewick facility use of the
constituent, or it was a minor
constituent in wastewater treatment
material, not detected in historical filter
cake samples, or converted to another
COPC in the wastewater treatment
process (i.e., hydrofluoric acid is
present as fluoride in the filter cake).
Based on this analysis, Sandvik’s SAP
proposed the following list of COPCs:
Arsenic; Barium; Cadmium; Chromium
(including hexavalent chromium);
Cobalt; Copper; Fluoride; 3 Lead; Nickel;
Silver; Tin; Vanadium; and Zinc. Details
of Sandvik’s identification of COPCs can
be found in Table 5 in Attachment 2 to
the delisting petition.
The objectives of the waste
characterization sampling conducted by
Sandvik were as follows:
• To supplement the existing
historical data set with total and TCLP
data for the identified COPCs;
• To collect samples that are
representative of process variations that
include processing of two different alloy
materials (titanium and zirconium) and
the periodic addition of the waste
coolant/lubricant to the filter cake
waste;
• To assess acute toxicity effects of
wastes in accordance with the
Washington State Department of
Ecology’s 80–12, Part A protocol,4 and
• To generate a representative data set
that can be used in the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software (DRAS) modeling.
To achieve these objectives, Sandvik
collected six (6) representative samples
over three (3) sampling events that
included the following scope of work:
• Each event included the collection
of one filter cake sample with the used
3 Fluoride does not meet the criteria set forth in
Section 3.1 but is included in the final list of COPCs
as requested by the EPA during a 17 April 2017
teleconference.
4 This sampling requirement is in place to satisfy
state-only requirements of Ecology’s dangerous
waste program. This requirement is considered
broader in scope than the federally authorized
program.
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
46130
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
coolant/lubricant waste stream and one
filter cake sample without the used
coolant/lubricant waste stream;
• Since titanium raw materials are
present at higher weight composition
percentages than zirconium, four filter
cake samples (two with coolant and two
without coolant) events were obtained
when only titanium alloys were being
run in the manufacturing process; and
• To account for the use of zirconium,
two samples (one with coolant and one
without coolant) were obtained while
zirconium alloys were also being run in
the manufacturing process in addition
to titanium alloys.5
All samples were analyzed for total
and TCLP COPCs, where applicable. If
chromium was detected at a
concentration above the laboratory
practical quantitation limit (PQL), a
sample from the same sampling event
was analyzed for hexavalent chromium.
If chromium was not detected above the
PQL, no additional testing was
performed. This approach to sampling
for chromium was used for both total
and TCLP sampling.
One sample with the coolant/
lubricant and one sample without the
coolant/lubricant was analyzed to assess
acute toxicity via bioassay as part of the
first titanium-only sampling events.
This combination of the filter cake
production characteristics is expected to
be the most conservative choice for
bioassay testing, given the higher
number of impurities in the titanium
alloy. Additional details of Sandvik’s
waste characterization sampling
activities are provided in Attachment 2
to the delisting petition.
D. What were the results of Sandvik’s
analysis of its waste?
Sandvik provided results of their
waste characterization activities in
Attachment 3 to the delisting petition
entitled ‘‘Sampling Results and Data
Evaluation Report.’’ As part of its
overall delisting petition submission,
Sandvik submitted a signed statement
certifying that information in the
petition, including their submission of
waste characterization data and
description of the associated sampling
and analysis activities, is true, accurate
and complete, and the responsibilities
of the signatory of the delisting petition.
See 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).
Sandvik conducted its first sampling
event on July 31, 2017, followed by two
5 The zirconium product requirements are more
sensitive to contamination. As such, the tanks and
mills are flushed prior to zirconium production.
The titanium product requirements are not as
sensitive; therefore, following zirconium
production, the same acids and coolant/lubricants
are used during titanium production.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Sep 11, 2018
Jkt 244001
additional sampling events on August
31 and September 25, 2017. Two
representative samples of the WWTF
filter cake were collected during each
event, one with the used coolant/
lubricant waste stream and one without,
for a total of six filter cake samples. Of
these six samples, four were collected
when only titanium alloys were being
run in the manufacturing process, and
two when zirconium was also being run.
Each sample was a composite sample
collected from four separate locations
within each filter cake collection bin
used to collect the filter cake following
the filter press. Sandvik’s delisting
petition states that according to facility
representatives, the filter cake
generation durations and resulting
volumes within the filter press during
each sampling event were typical for
facility operations. Additional details of
Sandvik’s waste characterization
sampling activities can be found in
Section 3 of the SAP (Attachment 2 of
the delisting petition).
Sandvik performed a quality
assurance/quality control review of each
laboratory report, with complete results
of the data validation review detailed in
Appendix C of the SAP. While this
review identified one constituent
(arsenic) from one sampling round
where the data do not fully satisfy the
data quality objectives set forth in
Sandvik’s quality control standards,
Sandvik concludes that the data are
nevertheless generally suitable for their
intended decision-making function.
This constituent and sampling round
are discussed further below.
Based on the results of filter cake
characterization sampling, Sandvik
concluded that all constituents other
than hexavalent chromium should be
retained as constituents of concern for
further evaluation. Sandvik’s deletion of
hexavalent chromium from the list of
COPCs is based on hexavalent
chromium not being detected in any of
the filter cake total or TCLP analysis
according to the sampling methodology
described above.
Sandvik compared their 2017 waste
characterization sampling results to
historical total and TCLP results
available for several of the COPCs. The
range of recent COPC results was
consistent with historical results except
for fluoride. Historical total fluoride
concentrations of 67,500 mg/kg and
42,000 mg/kg from 1991 and 1997,
respectively, were several orders of
magnitude higher than recent
concentrations; the highest recent
concentration was 907 mg/kg. Sandvik
indicates that it has progressively
reduced the amount of etching in its
process at the Kennewick facility, which
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
would result in a decline in
hydrofluoric acid use and fluoride in
the filter cake. In addition, the
collection method of the historical
samples as well as the production and
wastewater treatment system operations
at the time of historical sampling are
unknown. As a result, the 2017 samples
are considered to be more representative
of typical conditions for fluoride for
current and future operations at the
Kennewick facility.
Overall, totals concentrations from the
three 2017 sampling events were within
the range of historical results. In
addition to fluoride, as discussed in the
previous paragraph, one 2017 maximum
nickel sample (425 mg/kg) exceeded the
historical maximum nickel sample of
392 mg/kg. The 2017 totals samples also
exceeded historical maximum
concentrations for arsenic, barium,
chromium, and silver, but none of these
constituents had a difference of more
than one order of magnitude between
the 2017 and historic samples. Because
most historical concentrations are from
20 or more years ago and production
and collection methods are unknown,
the 2017 COPC results obtained from
implementation of the SAP were
considered more reliable and used for
the subsequent data evaluation.
Sandvik also compared the 2017
waste characterization sampling result
to the toxicity characteristic (TC)
regulatory standard for those waste
constituents for which regulatory
standards have been established. Based
on this comparison, Sandvik concluded
that the candidate wastes do not exhibit
the toxicity characteristic. Although
Sandvik did not explicitly evaluate their
candidate wastes for the characteristics
of ignitability, reactivity or corrosivity,
the EPA agrees that process knowledge
provides an adequate demonstration
that the wastes in question do not
exhibit the enumerated characteristics.
E. How did the EPA evaluate the risk of
delisting this waste?
For this delisting determination, we
assumed that the waste would be
disposed in a Subtitle D landfill and we
considered transport of waste
constituents through ground water,
surface water and air. We evaluated
Sandvik’s analysis of petitioned waste
using the Agency’s Delisting Risk
Assessment Software (DRAS) to predict
the concentration of hazardous
constituents that might be released from
the petitioned waste and to determine if
the waste would pose a threat to human
health and the environment. The DRAS
software and associated documentation
can be found at www.epa.gov/hw/
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
ingestion of contaminated groundwater,
inhalation from groundwater while
showering and dermal contact from
groundwater while bathing.
From a release to surface water by
erosion of waste from an open landfill
into storm water run-off, DRAS
evaluates the exposure to a human
receptor by fish ingestion and ingestion
of drinking water. From a release of
waste particles and volatile emissions to
air from the surface of an open landfill,
hazardous-waste-delisting-riskassessment-software-dras.
To predict the potential for release to
groundwater from landfilled wastes and
subsequent routes of exposure to a
receptor, the DRAS uses dilution
attenuation factors derived from the
EPA’s Composite Model for leachate
migration with Transformation
Products. From a release to ground
water, the DRAS considers routes of
exposure to a human receptor of
46131
DRAS considers routes of exposure of
inhalation of volatile constituents,
inhalation of particles, and air
deposition of particles on residential
soil and subsequent ingestion of the
contaminated soil by a child. The
technical support document and the
user’s guide to DRAS are included in
the docket.
Sandvik documented the input
parameters used in their DRAS analysis,
as summarized below:
TABLE 1—SANDVIK DELISTING DRAS INPUT
DRAS input parameter
Value
Assumptions
Waste Management Unit Type .......
Landfill ...........................................
Waste Volume—annual generation
Waste Management Unit Active Life
Target risk—carcinogenic risk level
1,500 cubic yards/year ..................
20 years .........................................
1×10¥5 ..........................................
Target risk—health quotient ............
1.0 ..................................................
Waste planned for disposal in the Finley Buttes Municipal Landfill,
Boardman, Oregon.
Conservative estimation value based on facility-specific information.
Selected based on the DRAS default value.
Based on risk ranges in the EPA’s RCRA Delisting Technical Support
Document (2008).
Based on risk ranges in the EPA’s RCRA Delisting Technical Support
Document (2008).
volume and the maximum reported total
and estimated leachate concentrations
as inputs to estimate the constituent
concentrations in the ground water, soil,
surface water or air. The following table
documents the constituent-specific
maximum total and TCLP sample
results used as input to the DRAS
At a target cancer risk of 1×10¥5 and
a target hazard quotient of 1.0, the
DRAS program determined maximum
allowable concentrations for each
constituent in both the waste and the
leachate at an annual waste volume of
1,500 cubic yards. Sandvik used the
maximum estimated annual waste
analysis, and the resulting modeling
results from DRAS. The EPA notes that
it has independently conducted its own
DRAS modeling run, and has verified
the modeling results documented by
Sandvik in its delisting petition.
TABLE 2—SAMPLING DATA AND DRAS MODELING RESULTS
Maximum observed
concentration 1
Constituent of
concern
Total concentrations
Total 1
TCLP
(mg/L) 4
(mg/kg)
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Modeling results
Arsenic ..................
Barium ..................
Cadmium ..............
Chromium .............
4.77
24.1
15.0
44.3
Cobalt ...................
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Limiting
concentration
(mg/kg) 2
U
U
U
U
9,840
21,300,000
37,100
77,500
291
0.255
103,000
Copper ..................
Fluoride .................
Lead ......................
26.2
907
11.1
0.057
114
0.05 U
3,790,000
1,490,000,000
8,870,000
Nickel ....................
425
0.466
3,870,000
Silver .....................
Tin .........................
Vanadium .............
Zinc .......................
5.76
268
1,500
69.4
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.233
3,830,000
14,900,000,000
124,000,000
9,810,000
Limiting pathway 3
Fish Ingestion ..............
Fish Ingestion ..............
Fish Ingestion ..............
Air Particulate Inhalation.
Air Particulate Inhalation.
Fish Ingestion ..............
Soil ..............................
Air Particulate Inhalation.
Air Particulate Inhalation.
Fish Ingestion ..............
Soil ..............................
Soil ..............................
Fish ingestion ..............
TCLP concentration
Limiting
concentration
(mg/L) 2
0.042
176
0.451
9.54
GW Ingestion.
MCL.
MCL.
MCL.
1.06
GW Ingestion.
120
194
2.95
MCL.
GW Ingestion.
MCL.
66.4
GW Ingestion.
38.8
192,000,000
16.9
992
1 Maximum
Limiting pathway 3
GW
GW
GW
GW
Ingestion.
Ingestion.
Ingestion.
Ingestion.
concentration obtained during implementation of the 2017 Sampling and Analysis Plan (Geosyntec, 2017).
Limiting Concentration is the lowest risk-based concentration developed in DRAS for the potential receptor pathways and specified target
risk levels. See text in Section IV.C for the EPA’s consideration of limiting concentrations exceeding 1,000,000 mg/kg for total concentrations or
1,000,000 mg/L for TCLP concentrations.
3 The Limiting Pathway is the corresponding potential receptor pathway for the Limiting Concentration.
4 For detected constituents, the maximum analytical result was used. For non-detect constituents (annotated with a ‘‘U’’), the practical quantitation limit (PQL) was used.
5 Note: Italicized cells indicate exceedance of COPC Concentration Input over the Limiting Concentration in the DRAS modeling.
2 The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Sep 11, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
46132
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
F. What did the EPA conclude about
Sandvik’s waste?
The maximum reported
concentrations of the hazardous
constituents found in this waste are
presented in the table above. The table
also presents the maximum allowable
concentrations. Except for the
groundwater pathway for arsenic, the
concentrations of all constituents in
both the waste and the leachate are
below the allowable concentrations.
For arsenic, the maximum reported
concentration was undetected at a value
of 0.05 mg/L, a value slightly higher
than the maximum allowable TCLP
concentration of 0.042 mg/L. The EPA’s
review of the corresponding laboratory
reports indicate that the laboratory
reported sample results from the July
31, 2017 characterization sampling
round as non-detect based on a practical
quantitation limit of 0.05 mg/L.
Subsequent laboratory reports for the
August 31, 2017 and October 4, 2017
characterization rounds, however,
reported TCLP arsenic results as nondetect at a level of 0.001 mg/L, based on
a lower method detection limit rather a
practical quantitation limit. Since the
total arsenic results for all
characterization samples are both low
and consistent, ranging from 2.02 to
4.77 mg/kg, the EPA believes that the
TCLP arsenic results for the July 31,
2017 results are not likely to be
materially different than lower nondetect results for the August 31, 2017
and October 4, 2017 sample results.
Also, based on the difference in arsenic
concentrations from the totals analysis
(detected at low levels) and the TCLP
samples (non-detect), arsenic appears to
be relatively immobile in the filter cake.
Therefore, the EPA concludes that even
though the TCLP arsenic data from the
August 31, 2017, laboratory report does
not explicitly document satisfaction of
the 0.042 mg/L TCLP arsenic delisting
criterion, the overall data set clearly
supports a conclusion that the TCLP
arsenic results do not exceed the
maximum allowable concentration of
0.042 mg/L from any of the
characterization sampling rounds, and
that this arsenic data quality issue is not
a sufficient basis to disqualify Sandvik’s
waste from being delisted. If the EPA
approves Sandvik’s delisting petition,
Sandvik must ensure that any required
periodic verification sampling and
analysis meet appropriate data quality
standards to address this issue.
We, therefore, conclude that
Sandvik’s wastewater treatment sludge
is not a substantial or potential hazard
to human health and the environment
when disposed of in a Subtitle D
landfill. Further, the data presented by
Sandvik in their petition supports the
EPA’s conclusion that the petitioned
waste does not exhibit any hazardous
characteristic, and that there are no
other factors that would warrant
retaining the waste as hazardous. On
this basis, we propose to grant the
Sandvik’s petition to delist this waste. If
this exclusion is finalized, and subject
to the conditions of the final delisting,
Sandvik must dispose of this waste in
a Subtitle D landfill permitted or
licensed by a state and will remain
obligated to verify that the waste
continues to meet the allowable
concentrations set forth here. Sandvik
must also continue to demonstrate that
the waste does not exhibit any
hazardous characteristics pursuant to 40
CFR part 261 Subpart C.
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. When would the EPA finalize the
proposed delisting exclusion?
HSWA specifically requires the EPA
to provide notice and an opportunity for
comment before granting or denying a
final exclusion. Thus, EPA will not
make a final decision or grant an
exclusion until it has addressed all
timely public comments on today’s
proposal, including any at public
hearings.
Since this rule would reduce the
existing requirements for persons
generating hazardous wastes, the
regulated community does not need a
six-month period to come into
compliance in accordance with § 3010
of RCRA as amended by HSWA.
B. How will Sandvik manage the waste
if it is delisted?
If the petitioned waste is delisted,
Sandvik must dispose of it in a Subtitle
D landfill which is permitted, licensed,
or registered by a state to manage
industrial waste.
C. What are the maximum allowable
concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the waste?
Concentrations measured in the waste
of the following constituents must not
exceed the concentrations in Table 3
below. The EPA notes that for barium,
chromium, and silver, the DRAS model
output predicts a maximum
concentration in an extract of the waste
that exceeds the toxicity characteristic
regulatory designation level (TC Limit)
for that constituent. Since wastes that
are a candidate for delisting cannot
exhibit a characteristic, the fourth
column in Table 3 caps the maximum
TCLP concentration of the waste at the
toxicity characteristic regulatory level
for barium, chromium and silver. These
capped levels for the maximum TCLP
concentration are the enforceable
decision criteria for demonstrating that
the waste meets delisting criteria.
TABLE 3—VERIFICATION CONSTITUENTS AND COMPLIANCE CONCENTRATIONS
Total
concentration
DRAS model
(mg/kg)
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Constituent
Arsenic .........................................................................................................................................
Barium ..........................................................................................................................................
Cadmium ......................................................................................................................................
Chromium ....................................................................................................................................
Cobalt ...........................................................................................................................................
Copper .........................................................................................................................................
Fluoride ........................................................................................................................................
Lead .............................................................................................................................................
Nickel ...........................................................................................................................................
Silver ............................................................................................................................................
Vanadium .....................................................................................................................................
Zinc ..............................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Sep 11, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9,840
N/A
37,100
77,500
103,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
TCLP
concentration
DRAS model
(mg/l)
0.042
176
0.451
9.54
1.06
120
194
2.95
66.4
38.8
16.9
992
TCLP
concentration
DRAS model
capped at TC
limit
(mg/l)
0.042
100
0.451
5.00
1.06
120
194
2.95
66.4
5.00
16.9
992
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
The EPA notes that in multiple
instances the maximum allowable total
constituent concentrations provided by
the DRAS model exceed 100% of the
waste—these DRAS results are an
artifact of the risk calculations that do
not have physical meaning. In instances
where DRAS predicts a maximum
constituent greater than 100 percent of
the waste (that is, greater than 1,000,000
mg/kg or mg/L, respectively, for total
and TCLP concentrations), the EPA is
not requiring Sandvik to perform
sampling and analysis for that
constituent and sampling type (total or
TCLP). In these instances, the
corresponding entry in Table 3 above is
‘‘N/A.’’
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
D. How frequently must Sandvik test the
waste?
Sandvik must analyze a representative
sample of the wastewater treatment
sludges on an annual basis to
demonstrate that the constituents of
concern in the petitioned waste do not
exceed the concentrations of concern in
section IV.C above. Sandvik must use
methods with sufficient analytical
sensitivity and appropriate quality
control procedures. SW–846 Method
1311 must be used for generation of the
leachate extract used in the testing of
the subject waste. SW–846 Method 1311
is incorporated by reference in 40 CFR
260.11.
A total analysis of the waste
(accounting for any filterable liquids
and the dilution factor inherent in the
TCLP method) may be used to estimate
the TCLP concentration as provided for
in section 1.2 of Method 1311. The EPA
is not requiring Sandvik to use Method
1330 for extraction of wastes, since
Method 1330 is applicable to API
separator sludges, rag oils, slop oil
emulsions, and other oil wastes derived
from petroleum refining, which are
fundamentally different wastes than
those proposed by Sandvik for delisting.
E. What data must Sandvik submit?
Sandvik must submit the data
obtained through annual verification
testing to U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of
Air and Waste, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite
155, OAW–150, Seattle, Washington
98101 upon each anniversary of the
effective date of this exclusion. Sandvik
must submit sampling data from both
titanium and zirconium manufacturing
processes provided both of these
materials have been in production and
contributed to candidate wastes within
the three (3) month period prior to each
anniversary of the effective date of this
delisting. If both materials are not in
production with the specified threemonth period, then only data from that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Sep 11, 2018
Jkt 244001
material in production need be
submitted.
Sandvik must compile, summarize,
and maintain on-site for a minimum of
five years, records of analytical data
required by this rule, and operating
conditions relevant to those data
analytical data. Sandvik must make
those records available for inspection.
All data must be accompanied by a
signed copy of the certification
statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).
46133
V. How would this action affect the
states?
Because the EPA is proposing to issue
this exclusion under the federal RCRA
delisting regulations, only states subject
to federal RCRA delisting provisions
will be affected. This exclusion may not
be effective in states which have
received authorization from the EPA to
make their own delisting decisions.
The EPA allows states to impose their
own non-RCRA regulatory requirements
F. What happens if Sandvik fails to meet that are more stringent than the EPA’s,
the conditions of the exclusion?
under § 3009 of RCRA. These more
stringent requirements may include a
If Sandvik violates the terms and
conditions established in the exclusion, provision that prohibits a federally
issued exclusion from taking effect in
the Agency may start procedures to
the state. We urge petitioners to contact
withdraw the exclusion.
the state regulatory authority to
If the verification testing of the waste
establish the status of their wastes under
does not demonstrate compliance with
the state law.
the delisting concentrations described
The EPA has also authorized some
in section IV.C above, or other data
states to administer a delisting program
(including but not limited to leachate
in place of the federal program, that is,
data or groundwater monitoring data
to make state delisting decisions.
from the final land disposal facility)
Therefore, this exclusion does not apply
relevant to the delisted waste indicates
in those authorized states. If Sandvik
that any constituent is at a
manages the waste in any state with
concentration in waste above specified
delisting authorization, Sandvik must
delisting verification concentrations in
obtain delisting authorization or other
Table 3, Sandvik must notify the
determination from the receiving state
Agency within 10 days of first
before it can manage the waste as
possessing or being made aware of the
nonhazardous in that state.
data. The exclusion will be suspended
While Washington State has received
and the waste managed as hazardous
final authorization to implement most of
until Sandvik has received written
its dangerous waste program regulations
approval from the EPA to continue the
in lieu of the federal program, including
exclusion. Sandvik may provide
the listing and identification of F006
sampling results which support the
wastes (See 51 FR 3782 (January 30,
continuation of the delisting exclusion.
1986), it has not been authorized to
The EPA has the authority under
implement its delisting regulations
RCRA and the Administrative
program in lieu of the federal program.
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et
The EPA notes that Washington State
seq. to reopen a delisting decision if we
receive new information indicating that has provisions in the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 173–303–
the conditions of this exclusion have
been violated, or are otherwise not being 910(3) similar to the federal provisions
upon which this delisting is based.
met.
These provisions are in effect as a
G. What must Sandvik do if the process
matter of state law. Thus, Sandvik must
changes?
seek approval from Washington State at
If Sandvik significantly changes the
the state level in addition to this
manufacturing or treatment process or
proposed delisting.
the chemicals used in the
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
manufacturing or treatment process,
Sandvik may not handle the wastewater Reviews
treatment sludge generated from the
Additional information about these
new process under this exclusion until
statutes and Executive Orders can be
it has demonstrated to the EPA that the
found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawswaste meets the concentrations set forth regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
in section IV.C and that no new
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
hazardous constituents listed in
Planning and Review and Executive
Appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261 have
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
been introduced. Sandvik must manage
Regulatory Review
wastes generated after the process
This proposed action is exempt from
change as hazardous waste until
review by the Office of Management and
Sandvik has received written notice
Budget because it is a rule of particular
from the EPA that the demonstration
applicability, not general applicability.
has been accepted.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
46134
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
The proposed action approves a
delisting petition under RCRA for the
petitioned waste at a particular facility.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This proposed action is not an
Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because actions such as approval of
delisting petitions under RCRA are
exempted under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action 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 only applies to a
particular facility.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Because this rule is of particular
applicability relating to a particular
facility, it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provision of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This proposed action does not contain
any unfunded mandate as described in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
U.S.C. 1531–1538) and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The action imposes no
new enforceable duty on any state,
local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed action 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.
H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This proposed action does not have
tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This proposed
action applies only to a particular
facility on non-tribal land. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
I. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This proposed action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This proposed action’s health
and risk assessments using the Agency’s
Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS), which considers health and
safety risks to children, are described in
section III.E above. The technical
support document and the user’s guide
for DRAS are included in the docket.
J. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
This proposed action is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, because it is not
a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
K. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
This proposed action does not involve
technical standards as described by the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note).
L. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this proposed
action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations,
and/or indigenous peoples. The EPA
has determined that this proposed
action 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, as described in section III.E
above, 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, the 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.
M. Congressional Review Act
This proposed action is exempt from
the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C.
801 et seq.) because it is a rule of
particular applicability.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous
waste, Recycling, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 21, 2018.
Jan Hastings,
Deputy Director, Office of Air and Waste.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 261 as follows:
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
6922, 6924(y) and 6938.
2. Amend Table 1 of Appendix IX to
Part 261 by adding the following waste
stream entry ‘‘Sandvik Special Metals’’
in alphabetical order to read as follows:
■
Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22
TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Facility
Address
*
Sandvik Special
Metals.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
Kennewick, Washington.
16:21 Sep 11, 2018
Jkt 244001
Waste description
*
*
*
*
*
Wastewater treatment sludges, F006, generated at Sandvik Special Metals (Sandvik) facility in
Kennewick, Washington at a maximum annual rate of 1,500 cubic yards per year. The sludge
must be disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized
by a state to accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge. The exclusion becomes effective
as of [the date of final publication].
1. Delisting Levels: (A) The constituent concentrations in a representative sample of the waste must
not exceed the following levels: Total concentrations (mg/kg): Arsenic—9,840; Cadmium—37,100;
Chromium—77,500; Cobalt—103,000. TCLP Concentrations (mg/l in the waste extract): Arsenic—
0.042; Barium—100; Cadmium—0.451; Chromium—5.00; Cobalt—1.06; Copper—120; Fluoride—
194; Lead—2.95; Nickel—66.4; Silver—5.00; Vanadium—16.9; Zinc—992.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
46135
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
2. Annual Verification Testing: To verify that the waste does not exceed the delisting concentrations
specified in Section 1.A, Sandvik must collect and analyze one representative waste sample with
coolant on an annual basis no later than each anniversary of the effective date of this delisting
using methods with appropriate detection concentrations and elements of quality control. If both titanium and zirconium products have been in production and contributed to candidate wastes within the three-month period prior to each anniversary of the effective date of this delisting, samples
of waste from both manufacturing processes must be collected for that reporting cycle. Otherwise,
sampling only of that material in production within the specified three-month period is required.
Sampling data must be provided to the EPA no later 60 days following each anniversary of the effective date of this delisting, or such later date as the EPA may agree to in writing. Sandvik must
conduct all verification sampling according to a written sampling plan and associated quality assurance project plan that ensures analytical data are suitable for their intended use, which must
be made available to the EPA upon request. Sandvik’s annual submission must also include a
certification that all wastes satisfying the delisting concentrations in Condition 1.A have been disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized by a state to
accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge.
3. Changes in Operating Conditions: Sandvik must notify the EPA in writing if it significantly
changes the manufacturing process, the chemicals used in the manufacturing process, the treatment process, or the chemicals used in the treatment process. Sandvik must handle wastes generated after the process change as hazardous until it has demonstrated that the wastes continue
to meet the delisting concentrations in section 1.C, demonstrated that no new hazardous constituents listed in 40 CFR part 261 Appendix VIII have been introduced into the manufacturing process or waste treatment process, and it has received written approval from the EPA that it may
continue to manage the waste as non-hazardous.
4. Data Submittals: Sandvik must submit the data obtained through verification testing or as required by other conditions of this rule to the Director, Office of Air and Waste, U.S. EPA Region
10, 1200 6th Avenue Suite 155, OAW–150, Seattle, Washington, 98070 or his or her equivalent.
The annual verification data and certification of proper disposal must be submitted within 60 days
after each anniversary of the effective date of this delisting exclusion, or such later date as the
EPA may agree to in writing. Sandvik must compile, summarize, and maintain on-site for a minimum of five years, records of analytical data required by this rule, and operating conditions relevant to those data. Sandvik must make these records available for inspection. All data must be
accompanied by a signed copy of the certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12). If Sandvik
fails to submit the required data within the specified time or maintain the required records on-site
for the specified time, the EPA may, at its discretion, consider such failure a sufficient basis to reopen the exclusion as described in paragraph 5.
5. Reopener Language—(A) If, any time after disposal of the delisted waste, Sandvik possesses or
is otherwise made aware of any data relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent
is at a higher than the specified delisting concentration, then Sandvik must report such data, in
writing, to the Director, Office of Air and Waste, EPA, Region 10, or his or her equivalent, within
10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. (B) Based on the information described in paragraph (A) and any other information received from any source, the EPA will make
a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires Agency action to protect human health or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment.
(C) If the EPA determines that the reported information does require Agency action, the EPA will
notify Sandvik in writing of the actions it believes are necessary to protect human health and the
environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing Sandvik with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed Agency action
is not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. Sandvik shall have 30 days from the date of
the EPA’s notice to present the information. (D) If after 30 days Sandvik presents no further information or after a review of any submitted information, the EPA will issue a final written determination describing the Agency actions that are necessary to protect human health or the environment. Any required action described in the EPA’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the EPA provides otherwise.
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2018–19595 Filed 9–11–18; 8:45 am]
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Sep 11, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\12SEP1.SGM
12SEP1
*
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 12, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46126-46135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19595]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R10-RCRA-2018-0538; SW-FRL-9982-05--Region 10]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Proposed Exclusion for
Identifying and Listing Hazardous Waste
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (also, ``the Agency'' or
``we'' in this preamble) is proposing to grant a petition submitted by
Sandvik Special Metals (Sandvik), in Kennewick, Washington to exclude
(or ``delist'') up to 1,500 cubic yards of F006 wastewater treatment
sludge per year from the list of federal hazardous wastes.
The Agency is proposing to grant the petition based on an
evaluation of waste-specific information provided by Sandvik. This
proposed decision, if finalized, conditionally excludes the petitioned
waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
We conclude that Sandvik's petitioned waste is nonhazardous with
respect to the original federal listing criteria and that there are no
other factors (including additional constituents) other than those for
which the waste was listed that would warrant retaining the waste as a
hazardous waste. Subject to state-only requirements within the state of
Washington, or federally-authorized or state-only requirements in other
states where the subject wastes may be disposed of, Sandvik's
petitioned waste may be disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is
permitted, licensed, or registered by a State to manage industrial
solid waste.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 12, 2018.
Requests for an informal hearing must reach the EPA by September 27,
2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
RCRA-2018-0538 by one of the following methods:
[[Page 46127]]
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
Mail: To Dr. David Bartus, Office of Air and Waste, EPA,
Region 10, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 155, OAW-150, Seattle, Washington
98101.
Hand Delivery: To Dr. David Bartus, Office of Air and
Waste, EPA, Region 10, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 155, OAW-150, Seattle,
Washington 98101. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours
of operation. Please contact David Bartus at (206) 553-2804.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-
2018-0538. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any physical
media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses.
Any person may request an informal hearing on this proposed
decision by filing a request with Timothy Hamlin, Director, Office of
Air and Waste, EPA, Region 10, 1200 6th Ave., Suite 155, OAW-150,
Seattle, Washington 98101. The request must contain the information
prescribed in 40 Code of Federal Regulations CFR 260.20(d).
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the RCRA Records Center, 16th floor, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 6th
Avenue, Suite 155, OAW-150, Seattle, Washington 98101. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. We recommend you telephone David Bartus at (206) 553-
2804 before visiting the Region 10 office. The public may copy material
from the regulatory docket at 15 cents per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Dr. David Bartus, EPA, Region 10,
1200 6th Avenue, Suite 155, OAW-150, Seattle, Washington 98070;
telephone number: (206) 553-2804; fax number (206) 553-8509; email
address: [email protected].
As discussed in Section V below, the Washington State Department of
Ecology is evaluating Sandvik's petition under state authority.
Information on Ecology's action may be found at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1804023.html.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
II. Background
A. What is a listed waste?
B. What is a delisting petition?
C. What factors must the EPA consider in deciding whether to
grant a delisting petition?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What waste did Sandvik petition EPA to delist?
B. How does Sandvik generate the waste?
C. How did Sandvik sample and analyze the waste?
D. What were the results of Sandvik's analysis of the waste?
E. How did the EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
F. What did the EPA conclude about Sandvik's waste?
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. When would the EPA finalize the proposed delisting exclusion?
B. How will Sandvik manage the waste if it is delisted?
C. What are the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the waste?
D. How frequently must Sandvik test the waste?
E. What data must Sandvik submit?
F. What happens if Sandvik's waste fails to meet the conditions
of the exclusion?
G. What must Sandvik do if the process changes?
V. How would this action affect states?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
The EPA is proposing to grant the petition submitted by Sandvik
Special Metals (Sandvik) located in Kennewick, Washington to exclude or
delist an annual volume of up to 1,500 cubic yards of F006 wastewater
treatment sludge from the lists of hazardous waste set forth in 40 Code
of Federal Regulations CFR 261.31. Sandvik claims that the petitioned
waste does not meet the criteria for which the EPA listed it, and that
there are no additional constituents or factors which could cause the
waste to be hazardous.
Based on our review described in section III, we agree with the
petitioner that the waste is nonhazardous. We reviewed the description
of the process which generates the waste and the analytical data
submitted by Sandvik. We believe that the petitioned waste does not
meet the criteria for which the waste was listed, and that there are no
other factors which might cause the waste to be hazardous.
II. Background
A. What is a listed waste?
The EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from
nonspecific and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its
final and interim final regulations implementing Sec. 3001 of Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has amended this list
several times and published it in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32.
We list these wastes as hazardous because: (1) They typically and
frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous
wastes identified in subpart C of part 261 (that is, ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or (2) they meet the criteria
for listing contained in Sec. 261.11(a)(2) or (3).
B. What is a delisting petition?
Individual waste streams may vary depending on raw materials,
industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste described
in the regulations generally is hazardous, a specific waste from an
individual facility meeting the listing description may not be
hazardous.
A procedure to exclude or delist a waste is provided in 40 CFR
260.20 and 260.22 which allows a person or a facility to submit a
petition to the EPA or to an authorized state demonstrating
[[Page 46128]]
that a specific waste from a particular generating facility is not
hazardous.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Washington State has promulgated regulations at WAC 173-303-
910(3) corresponding to the cited federal regulation. However,
Washington State has not received final authorization to implement
these regulations in lieu of the federal program. As such, they are
effective concurrent with 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 on a state-only
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that a waste does
not meet any of the criteria for listed wastes in 40 CFR 261.11 and
that the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics of ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, or toxicity.
The petitioner must present sufficient information for us to decide
whether any factors in addition to those for which the waste was listed
warrant retaining it as a hazardous waste. (See Sec. 260.22, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f) and the background documents for the listed wastes.)
If a delisting petition is granted, the generator remains obligated
under RCRA to confirm that the waste remains nonhazardous according to
the conditions of the delisting.
C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a
delisting petition?
In reviewing this petition, we considered the original listing
criteria and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See Sec. 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)-(4). We evaluated the petitioned waste
against the listing criteria and factors cited in Sec. 261.11(a)(2)
and (3).
Besides considering the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a), 261.11(a)(2)
and (3), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background documents for the
listed wastes, the EPA must consider any factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which we listed the waste if these
additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous.
Our proposed decision to grant the petition to delist the waste
from Sandvik's Kennewick, Washington facility is based on our
evaluation of the waste for factors or criteria which could cause the
waste to be hazardous. These factors included: (1) Whether the waste is
considered acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity of the constituents; (3) the
concentration of the constituents in the waste; (4) the tendency of the
constituents to migrate and to bioaccumulate; (5) the persistence in
the environment of any constituents once released from the waste; (6)
plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned waste; (7)
the quantity of waste produced; and (8) waste variability.
The EPA must also consider as hazardous wastes mixtures containing
listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or
disposing of listed hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and
(c)(2)(i), called the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively. Mixture and derived-from wastes are also eligible for
exclusion but remain hazardous until excluded.
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What waste did Sandvik petition the EPA to delist?
On April 27, 2018, Sandvik petitioned the EPA to exclude an annual
volume of up to 1,500 cubic yards of F006 wastewater treatment sludges
generated at its facility located in Kennewick, Washington from the
list of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31. F006 is defined in
Sec. 261.31 as ``Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating
operations . . .'' Sandvik claims that the petitioned waste does not
meet the criteria for which F006 was listed (i.e., cadmium, hexavalent
chromium, nickel and complexed cyanide) and that there are no other
factors which would cause the waste to be hazardous.
B. How does Sandvik generate the waste?
Sandvik Special Metals fabricates specialty titanium and zirconium
tubing for the aeronautical, medical and nuclear industries. The filter
cake waste material that is the subject of this delisting action is the
combined end waste from the wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) that
manages F006 chemical etching wastes, and a separate coolant process
waste stream associated with Sandvik's manufacturing process. A
detailed description of the processes which contribute to the filter
cake, including the wastewater treatment and the manufacturing
processes, associated alloys and process materials, is provided below.
Titanium and zirconium alloys are the main raw materials for the
manufacturing process, with titanium being used for most products and
zirconium being used only on special orders for the nuclear industry.
In recent years, zirconium accounted for less than one percent of the
total production, however, zirconium has accounted for up to 10 to 20
percent of the production volume historically. The manufacturing
processes meet strict industry standards for Sandvik customers and are
consistent at the Kennewick facility.
The standard tube making process for titanium (Ti) and zirconium
(Zr) alloyed tubing includes three main steps. See Figure 1 in
Sandvik's delisting petition. The alloys used in the process arrive at
the Kennewick facility in the form of large diameter rough tubing
(either extrusions or Trex [which is an extrusion that has been reduced
once]) from one of two suppliers, Sandvik SZ in Sweden or ATI in
Oregon. In the first tube-making process, the extrusions or Trex go
through multiple cold pilger steps to reduce the diameter size of the
tubing into seamless hollow metal tubing. The cold pilgering process
uses roll dies (presses) and a tapered mandrel (the rod that supports
the inside of the tube during formation) to reduce the size of the
tubing cross section. A fatty acid coolant/lubricant is used to manage
heat generation during the process. The number of cold pilgering steps
is dependent on the available starting materials and final tube size.
After each cold pilger step, the interior of the tube is cleaned in a
hot alkaline solution to remove the fatty acid coolant/lubricant used
in the forming process, resulting in the generation of an alkaline
rinsing solution that is discharged to the WWTF and a small amount of
used fatty acid coolant/lubricant, which is pumped to an underground
storage tank and then batch transferred to the WWTF.
The second step in the tube forming process is a high temperature
anneal step performed to relieve stress on the metal that can make it
brittle after cold forming. Annealing also improves the homogeneity of
the metal and can improve the ductile and toughness properties. No
waste is generated during the annealing process.
During the third step, after annealing, the hollows, or final tubes
are rotary straightened and cleaned in the hot alkaline solution again
to remove the straightening lubrication. The cleaned hollows are open
dip etched in an acidic solution to remove a small amount of metal from
both the outer diameter (OD) and inner diameter (ID) surfaces. The
acidic waste and rinse water from the hollow etch process is discharged
to the WWTF. This acid etch step is the basis for application of the
F006 listing to Sandvik's WWTF sludge, as discussed in the following
section.
If the next pass is to produce a smaller OD or thinner wall hollow,
the above three-step process is repeated until the desired sizing is
accomplished resulting in a final tube.
[[Page 46129]]
C. How is Sandvik's waste captured by the F006 listing definition?
The listing definition for F006 waste at 40 CFR 261.31 states that
the source definition of F006 wastes include:
Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations except
from the following processes: (1) Sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum;
(2) tin plating on carbon steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on
carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-aluminum plating on carbon steel;
(5) cleaning/stripping associated with tin, zinc and aluminum plating
on carbon steel; and (6) chemical etching and milling of aluminum.
The EPA promulgated an interpretive rule (51 FR 43350 (December 2,
1986)) clarifying the scope of the EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006
contained in the list of hazardous wastes from non-specific sources of
Subpart D of Part 261. This interpretive rule established that:
The F006 listing is (and always has been) therefore, inclusive of
wastewater treatment sludges from only the following processes: (1)
Common and precious metals electroplating, except tin, zinc (segregated
basis), aluminum, and zinc-aluminum plating on carbon steel; (2)
anodizing, except sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum; (3) chemical
etching and milling, except when performed on aluminum; and (4)
cleaning and stripping, except when associated with tin, zinc, and
aluminum plating on carbon steel.
Because the Sandvik production process that results in generation
of the candidate WWTF sludge includes chemical etching other than that
performed on aluminum, Sandvik's WWTF sludge meets the definition of
F006 listed waste.
D. How did Sandvik sample and analyze the petitioned waste?
Sandvik conducted a detailed chemical analysis of their WWTF sludge
according to a written sampling and analysis plan (SAP), provided as
Attachment 2 to the delisting petition. This SAP included the following
key elements:
A description of the manufacturing and wastewater
treatment processes relevant to the petitioned waste;
An initial identification of Constituents of Potential
Concern (COPCs) potentially present in the petitioned waste based on
manufacturing and wastewater treatment processes;
Development of sampling strategies to address variations
and periodic fluctuations in the manufacturing and wastewater treatment
processes, including obtaining representative samples to account for
variations of alloys used in the manufacturing process and addition of
coolant/lubricant into the filter cake.
The proposed methodology for evaluating the resulting data
with respect to anticipated delisting decision criteria; and
A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) documenting the
required quality and quantity of the data necessary for decisions based
on them to be within an acceptable degree of uncertainty.
Sandvik's SAP identified an initial list of COPCs based on a
consideration of constituents included in the F006 hazardous waste
listing and present in the manufacturing and wastewater treatment
materials and processes. See Section 2 and Table 5 of Attachment 2 in
Sandvik's delisting petition. Additionally, the list of COPCs included
impurities and other constituents listed in the alloys and in the
process and wastewater treatment chemical Safety Data Sheets (SDS).\2\
Constituents were then evaluated based on historical detections in the
filter cake waste and compared to constituents listed in the following
RCRA regulations, as applicable to the Kennewick facility and this
specific filter cake waste:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ SDS constituent reporting requirements are typically
ingredients which have been determined to be health hazards, and
which comprise 1% or greater of the composition, except chemicals
identified as carcinogens which are listed if the concentrations are
0.1% or greater. In addition, chemicals <1% (<0.1% for carcinogens)
are reported if they could be released from the product at a
concentration that would exceed an established Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OHSA) exposure limit. SDSs are prepared
in accordance with OHSA (29 CFR 1910.1200(g)) and the Global
Harmonization System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constituent for which F006 was listed (40 CFR part 261
Appendix VII; WAC 173-303-082) or listed as a Land Disposal Restriction
(LDR) constituent subject to treatment for F006 or identified as a
constituent for which an LDR Universal Treatment Standard has been
established (40 CFR 268.40 and 268.48; WAC 173-303-140) with the
exception of cyanide. Cyanide was not retained as a COPC because there
is no documented use of cyanide at the Kennewick facility and it was
not detected in historical filter cake samples.
Constituent has been historically detected in filter cake
and was present on the Toxicity Characteristics List (40 CFR 261.24;
WAC 173-303-090 Part 8), Hazardous Constituents List (40 CFR part 261
Appendix VIII; WAC 173-303-9905), and/or Groundwater Monitoring List
(40 CFR part 264 Appendix IX; WAC 173-303-110(7)).
According to the alloy composition, constituent could
potentially be present in the filter cake and is listed on the Toxicity
Characteristics List (40 CFR 261.24; WAC 173-303-090(8)), Hazardous
Constituents List (40 CFR part 261 Appendix VIII; WAC 173-303-9905),
and/or the Groundwater Monitoring List (40 CFR part 264 Appendix IX;
WAC 173-303-110 Part 7).
A constituent was not retained as a COPC if it was not:
Listed on potentially relevant regulatory lists; or
There was no documented Kennewick facility use of the
constituent, or it was a minor constituent in wastewater treatment
material, not detected in historical filter cake samples, or converted
to another COPC in the wastewater treatment process (i.e., hydrofluoric
acid is present as fluoride in the filter cake).
Based on this analysis, Sandvik's SAP proposed the following list
of COPCs: Arsenic; Barium; Cadmium; Chromium (including hexavalent
chromium); Cobalt; Copper; Fluoride; \3\ Lead; Nickel; Silver; Tin;
Vanadium; and Zinc. Details of Sandvik's identification of COPCs can be
found in Table 5 in Attachment 2 to the delisting petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Fluoride does not meet the criteria set forth in Section 3.1
but is included in the final list of COPCs as requested by the EPA
during a 17 April 2017 teleconference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The objectives of the waste characterization sampling conducted by
Sandvik were as follows:
To supplement the existing historical data set with total
and TCLP data for the identified COPCs;
To collect samples that are representative of process
variations that include processing of two different alloy materials
(titanium and zirconium) and the periodic addition of the waste
coolant/lubricant to the filter cake waste;
To assess acute toxicity effects of wastes in accordance
with the Washington State Department of Ecology's 80-12, Part A
protocol,\4\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This sampling requirement is in place to satisfy state-only
requirements of Ecology's dangerous waste program. This requirement
is considered broader in scope than the federally authorized
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To generate a representative data set that can be used in
the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) modeling.
To achieve these objectives, Sandvik collected six (6)
representative samples over three (3) sampling events that included the
following scope of work:
Each event included the collection of one filter cake
sample with the used
[[Page 46130]]
coolant/lubricant waste stream and one filter cake sample without the
used coolant/lubricant waste stream;
Since titanium raw materials are present at higher weight
composition percentages than zirconium, four filter cake samples (two
with coolant and two without coolant) events were obtained when only
titanium alloys were being run in the manufacturing process; and
To account for the use of zirconium, two samples (one with
coolant and one without coolant) were obtained while zirconium alloys
were also being run in the manufacturing process in addition to
titanium alloys.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The zirconium product requirements are more sensitive to
contamination. As such, the tanks and mills are flushed prior to
zirconium production. The titanium product requirements are not as
sensitive; therefore, following zirconium production, the same acids
and coolant/lubricants are used during titanium production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All samples were analyzed for total and TCLP COPCs, where
applicable. If chromium was detected at a concentration above the
laboratory practical quantitation limit (PQL), a sample from the same
sampling event was analyzed for hexavalent chromium. If chromium was
not detected above the PQL, no additional testing was performed. This
approach to sampling for chromium was used for both total and TCLP
sampling.
One sample with the coolant/lubricant and one sample without the
coolant/lubricant was analyzed to assess acute toxicity via bioassay as
part of the first titanium-only sampling events. This combination of
the filter cake production characteristics is expected to be the most
conservative choice for bioassay testing, given the higher number of
impurities in the titanium alloy. Additional details of Sandvik's waste
characterization sampling activities are provided in Attachment 2 to
the delisting petition.
D. What were the results of Sandvik's analysis of its waste?
Sandvik provided results of their waste characterization activities
in Attachment 3 to the delisting petition entitled ``Sampling Results
and Data Evaluation Report.'' As part of its overall delisting petition
submission, Sandvik submitted a signed statement certifying that
information in the petition, including their submission of waste
characterization data and description of the associated sampling and
analysis activities, is true, accurate and complete, and the
responsibilities of the signatory of the delisting petition. See 40 CFR
260.22(i)(12).
Sandvik conducted its first sampling event on July 31, 2017,
followed by two additional sampling events on August 31 and September
25, 2017. Two representative samples of the WWTF filter cake were
collected during each event, one with the used coolant/lubricant waste
stream and one without, for a total of six filter cake samples. Of
these six samples, four were collected when only titanium alloys were
being run in the manufacturing process, and two when zirconium was also
being run. Each sample was a composite sample collected from four
separate locations within each filter cake collection bin used to
collect the filter cake following the filter press. Sandvik's delisting
petition states that according to facility representatives, the filter
cake generation durations and resulting volumes within the filter press
during each sampling event were typical for facility operations.
Additional details of Sandvik's waste characterization sampling
activities can be found in Section 3 of the SAP (Attachment 2 of the
delisting petition).
Sandvik performed a quality assurance/quality control review of
each laboratory report, with complete results of the data validation
review detailed in Appendix C of the SAP. While this review identified
one constituent (arsenic) from one sampling round where the data do not
fully satisfy the data quality objectives set forth in Sandvik's
quality control standards, Sandvik concludes that the data are
nevertheless generally suitable for their intended decision-making
function. This constituent and sampling round are discussed further
below.
Based on the results of filter cake characterization sampling,
Sandvik concluded that all constituents other than hexavalent chromium
should be retained as constituents of concern for further evaluation.
Sandvik's deletion of hexavalent chromium from the list of COPCs is
based on hexavalent chromium not being detected in any of the filter
cake total or TCLP analysis according to the sampling methodology
described above.
Sandvik compared their 2017 waste characterization sampling results
to historical total and TCLP results available for several of the
COPCs. The range of recent COPC results was consistent with historical
results except for fluoride. Historical total fluoride concentrations
of 67,500 mg/kg and 42,000 mg/kg from 1991 and 1997, respectively, were
several orders of magnitude higher than recent concentrations; the
highest recent concentration was 907 mg/kg. Sandvik indicates that it
has progressively reduced the amount of etching in its process at the
Kennewick facility, which would result in a decline in hydrofluoric
acid use and fluoride in the filter cake. In addition, the collection
method of the historical samples as well as the production and
wastewater treatment system operations at the time of historical
sampling are unknown. As a result, the 2017 samples are considered to
be more representative of typical conditions for fluoride for current
and future operations at the Kennewick facility.
Overall, totals concentrations from the three 2017 sampling events
were within the range of historical results. In addition to fluoride,
as discussed in the previous paragraph, one 2017 maximum nickel sample
(425 mg/kg) exceeded the historical maximum nickel sample of 392 mg/kg.
The 2017 totals samples also exceeded historical maximum concentrations
for arsenic, barium, chromium, and silver, but none of these
constituents had a difference of more than one order of magnitude
between the 2017 and historic samples. Because most historical
concentrations are from 20 or more years ago and production and
collection methods are unknown, the 2017 COPC results obtained from
implementation of the SAP were considered more reliable and used for
the subsequent data evaluation.
Sandvik also compared the 2017 waste characterization sampling
result to the toxicity characteristic (TC) regulatory standard for
those waste constituents for which regulatory standards have been
established. Based on this comparison, Sandvik concluded that the
candidate wastes do not exhibit the toxicity characteristic. Although
Sandvik did not explicitly evaluate their candidate wastes for the
characteristics of ignitability, reactivity or corrosivity, the EPA
agrees that process knowledge provides an adequate demonstration that
the wastes in question do not exhibit the enumerated characteristics.
E. How did the EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
For this delisting determination, we assumed that the waste would
be disposed in a Subtitle D landfill and we considered transport of
waste constituents through ground water, surface water and air. We
evaluated Sandvik's analysis of petitioned waste using the Agency's
Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) to predict the concentration
of hazardous constituents that might be released from the petitioned
waste and to determine if the waste would pose a threat to human health
and the environment. The DRAS software and associated documentation can
be found at www.epa.gov/hw/
[[Page 46131]]
hazardous-waste-delisting-risk-assessment-software-dras.
To predict the potential for release to groundwater from landfilled
wastes and subsequent routes of exposure to a receptor, the DRAS uses
dilution attenuation factors derived from the EPA's Composite Model for
leachate migration with Transformation Products. From a release to
ground water, the DRAS considers routes of exposure to a human receptor
of ingestion of contaminated groundwater, inhalation from groundwater
while showering and dermal contact from groundwater while bathing.
From a release to surface water by erosion of waste from an open
landfill into storm water run-off, DRAS evaluates the exposure to a
human receptor by fish ingestion and ingestion of drinking water. From
a release of waste particles and volatile emissions to air from the
surface of an open landfill, DRAS considers routes of exposure of
inhalation of volatile constituents, inhalation of particles, and air
deposition of particles on residential soil and subsequent ingestion of
the contaminated soil by a child. The technical support document and
the user's guide to DRAS are included in the docket.
Sandvik documented the input parameters used in their DRAS
analysis, as summarized below:
Table 1--Sandvik Delisting DRAS Input
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRAS input parameter Value Assumptions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management Unit Type.... Landfill......... Waste planned for
disposal in the
Finley Buttes
Municipal Landfill,
Boardman, Oregon.
Waste Volume--annual 1,500 cubic yards/ Conservative
generation. year. estimation value
based on facility-
specific
information.
Waste Management Unit Active 20 years......... Selected based on the
Life. DRAS default value.
Target risk--carcinogenic risk 1x10-\5\......... Based on risk ranges
level. in the EPA's RCRA
Delisting Technical
Support Document
(2008).
Target risk--health quotient.. 1.0.............. Based on risk ranges
in the EPA's RCRA
Delisting Technical
Support Document
(2008).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At a target cancer risk of 1x10-\5\ and a target hazard quotient of
1.0, the DRAS program determined maximum allowable concentrations for
each constituent in both the waste and the leachate at an annual waste
volume of 1,500 cubic yards. Sandvik used the maximum estimated annual
waste volume and the maximum reported total and estimated leachate
concentrations as inputs to estimate the constituent concentrations in
the ground water, soil, surface water or air. The following table
documents the constituent-specific maximum total and TCLP sample
results used as input to the DRAS analysis, and the resulting modeling
results from DRAS. The EPA notes that it has independently conducted
its own DRAS modeling run, and has verified the modeling results
documented by Sandvik in its delisting petition.
Table 2--Sampling Data and DRAS Modeling Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum observed concentration Modeling results
\1\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------- Total concentrations TCLP concentration
Constituent of concern ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total \1\ (mg/ TCLP (mg/L) Limiting Limiting
kg) \4\ concentration Limiting pathway \3\ concentration Limiting pathway \3\
(mg/kg) \2\ (mg/L) \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic......................... 4.77 0.05 U 9,840 Fish Ingestion.......... 0.042 GW Ingestion.
Barium.......................... 24.1 0.05 U 21,300,000 Fish Ingestion.......... 176 MCL.
Cadmium......................... 15.0 0.05 U 37,100 Fish Ingestion.......... 0.451 MCL.
Chromium........................ 44.3 0.05 U 77,500 Air Particulate 9.54 MCL.
Inhalation.
Cobalt.......................... 291 0.255 103,000 Air Particulate 1.06 GW Ingestion.
Inhalation.
Copper.......................... 26.2 0.057 3,790,000 Fish Ingestion.......... 120 MCL.
Fluoride........................ 907 114 1,490,000,000 Soil.................... 194 GW Ingestion.
Lead............................ 11.1 0.05 U 8,870,000 Air Particulate 2.95 MCL.
Inhalation.
Nickel.......................... 425 0.466 3,870,000 Air Particulate 66.4 GW Ingestion.
Inhalation.
Silver.......................... 5.76 0.05 U 3,830,000 Fish Ingestion.......... 38.8 GW Ingestion.
Tin............................. 268 0.05 U 14,900,000,000 Soil.................... 192,000,000 GW Ingestion.
Vanadium........................ 1,500 0.05 U 124,000,000 Soil.................... 16.9 GW Ingestion.
Zinc............................ 69.4 0.233 9,810,000 Fish ingestion.......... 992 GW Ingestion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maximum concentration obtained during implementation of the 2017 Sampling and Analysis Plan (Geosyntec, 2017).
\2\ The Limiting Concentration is the lowest risk-based concentration developed in DRAS for the potential receptor pathways and specified target risk
levels. See text in Section IV.C for the EPA's consideration of limiting concentrations exceeding 1,000,000 mg/kg for total concentrations or
1,000,000 mg/L for TCLP concentrations.
\3\ The Limiting Pathway is the corresponding potential receptor pathway for the Limiting Concentration.
\4\ For detected constituents, the maximum analytical result was used. For non-detect constituents (annotated with a ``U''), the practical quantitation
limit (PQL) was used.
\5\ Note: Italicized cells indicate exceedance of COPC Concentration Input over the Limiting Concentration in the DRAS modeling.
[[Page 46132]]
F. What did the EPA conclude about Sandvik's waste?
The maximum reported concentrations of the hazardous constituents
found in this waste are presented in the table above. The table also
presents the maximum allowable concentrations. Except for the
groundwater pathway for arsenic, the concentrations of all constituents
in both the waste and the leachate are below the allowable
concentrations.
For arsenic, the maximum reported concentration was undetected at a
value of 0.05 mg/L, a value slightly higher than the maximum allowable
TCLP concentration of 0.042 mg/L. The EPA's review of the corresponding
laboratory reports indicate that the laboratory reported sample results
from the July 31, 2017 characterization sampling round as non-detect
based on a practical quantitation limit of 0.05 mg/L. Subsequent
laboratory reports for the August 31, 2017 and October 4, 2017
characterization rounds, however, reported TCLP arsenic results as non-
detect at a level of 0.001 mg/L, based on a lower method detection
limit rather a practical quantitation limit. Since the total arsenic
results for all characterization samples are both low and consistent,
ranging from 2.02 to 4.77 mg/kg, the EPA believes that the TCLP arsenic
results for the July 31, 2017 results are not likely to be materially
different than lower non-detect results for the August 31, 2017 and
October 4, 2017 sample results. Also, based on the difference in
arsenic concentrations from the totals analysis (detected at low
levels) and the TCLP samples (non-detect), arsenic appears to be
relatively immobile in the filter cake. Therefore, the EPA concludes
that even though the TCLP arsenic data from the August 31, 2017,
laboratory report does not explicitly document satisfaction of the
0.042 mg/L TCLP arsenic delisting criterion, the overall data set
clearly supports a conclusion that the TCLP arsenic results do not
exceed the maximum allowable concentration of 0.042 mg/L from any of
the characterization sampling rounds, and that this arsenic data
quality issue is not a sufficient basis to disqualify Sandvik's waste
from being delisted. If the EPA approves Sandvik's delisting petition,
Sandvik must ensure that any required periodic verification sampling
and analysis meet appropriate data quality standards to address this
issue.
We, therefore, conclude that Sandvik's wastewater treatment sludge
is not a substantial or potential hazard to human health and the
environment when disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill. Further, the
data presented by Sandvik in their petition supports the EPA's
conclusion that the petitioned waste does not exhibit any hazardous
characteristic, and that there are no other factors that would warrant
retaining the waste as hazardous. On this basis, we propose to grant
the Sandvik's petition to delist this waste. If this exclusion is
finalized, and subject to the conditions of the final delisting,
Sandvik must dispose of this waste in a Subtitle D landfill permitted
or licensed by a state and will remain obligated to verify that the
waste continues to meet the allowable concentrations set forth here.
Sandvik must also continue to demonstrate that the waste does not
exhibit any hazardous characteristics pursuant to 40 CFR part 261
Subpart C.
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. When would the EPA finalize the proposed delisting exclusion?
HSWA specifically requires the EPA to provide notice and an
opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final exclusion.
Thus, EPA will not make a final decision or grant an exclusion until it
has addressed all timely public comments on today's proposal, including
any at public hearings.
Since this rule would reduce the existing requirements for persons
generating hazardous wastes, the regulated community does not need a
six-month period to come into compliance in accordance with Sec. 3010
of RCRA as amended by HSWA.
B. How will Sandvik manage the waste if it is delisted?
If the petitioned waste is delisted, Sandvik must dispose of it in
a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a
state to manage industrial waste.
C. What are the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the waste?
Concentrations measured in the waste of the following constituents
must not exceed the concentrations in Table 3 below. The EPA notes that
for barium, chromium, and silver, the DRAS model output predicts a
maximum concentration in an extract of the waste that exceeds the
toxicity characteristic regulatory designation level (TC Limit) for
that constituent. Since wastes that are a candidate for delisting
cannot exhibit a characteristic, the fourth column in Table 3 caps the
maximum TCLP concentration of the waste at the toxicity characteristic
regulatory level for barium, chromium and silver. These capped levels
for the maximum TCLP concentration are the enforceable decision
criteria for demonstrating that the waste meets delisting criteria.
Table 3--Verification Constituents and Compliance Concentrations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCLP
Total TCLP concentration
Constituent concentration concentration DRAS model
DRAS model (mg/ DRAS model (mg/ capped at TC
kg) l) limit (mg/l)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic......................................................... 9,840 0.042 0.042
Barium.......................................................... N/A 176 100
Cadmium......................................................... 37,100 0.451 0.451
Chromium........................................................ 77,500 9.54 5.00
Cobalt.......................................................... 103,000 1.06 1.06
Copper.......................................................... N/A 120 120
Fluoride........................................................ N/A 194 194
Lead............................................................ N/A 2.95 2.95
Nickel.......................................................... N/A 66.4 66.4
Silver.......................................................... N/A 38.8 5.00
Vanadium........................................................ N/A 16.9 16.9
Zinc............................................................ N/A 992 992
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46133]]
The EPA notes that in multiple instances the maximum allowable
total constituent concentrations provided by the DRAS model exceed 100%
of the waste--these DRAS results are an artifact of the risk
calculations that do not have physical meaning. In instances where DRAS
predicts a maximum constituent greater than 100 percent of the waste
(that is, greater than 1,000,000 mg/kg or mg/L, respectively, for total
and TCLP concentrations), the EPA is not requiring Sandvik to perform
sampling and analysis for that constituent and sampling type (total or
TCLP). In these instances, the corresponding entry in Table 3 above is
``N/A.''
D. How frequently must Sandvik test the waste?
Sandvik must analyze a representative sample of the wastewater
treatment sludges on an annual basis to demonstrate that the
constituents of concern in the petitioned waste do not exceed the
concentrations of concern in section IV.C above. Sandvik must use
methods with sufficient analytical sensitivity and appropriate quality
control procedures. SW-846 Method 1311 must be used for generation of
the leachate extract used in the testing of the subject waste. SW-846
Method 1311 is incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11.
A total analysis of the waste (accounting for any filterable
liquids and the dilution factor inherent in the TCLP method) may be
used to estimate the TCLP concentration as provided for in section 1.2
of Method 1311. The EPA is not requiring Sandvik to use Method 1330 for
extraction of wastes, since Method 1330 is applicable to API separator
sludges, rag oils, slop oil emulsions, and other oil wastes derived
from petroleum refining, which are fundamentally different wastes than
those proposed by Sandvik for delisting.
E. What data must Sandvik submit?
Sandvik must submit the data obtained through annual verification
testing to U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Air and Waste, 1200 6th
Avenue, Suite 155, OAW-150, Seattle, Washington 98101 upon each
anniversary of the effective date of this exclusion. Sandvik must
submit sampling data from both titanium and zirconium manufacturing
processes provided both of these materials have been in production and
contributed to candidate wastes within the three (3) month period prior
to each anniversary of the effective date of this delisting. If both
materials are not in production with the specified three-month period,
then only data from that material in production need be submitted.
Sandvik must compile, summarize, and maintain on-site for a minimum
of five years, records of analytical data required by this rule, and
operating conditions relevant to those data analytical data. Sandvik
must make those records available for inspection. All data must be
accompanied by a signed copy of the certification statement in 40 CFR
260.22(i)(12).
F. What happens if Sandvik fails to meet the conditions of the
exclusion?
If Sandvik violates the terms and conditions established in the
exclusion, the Agency may start procedures to withdraw the exclusion.
If the verification testing of the waste does not demonstrate
compliance with the delisting concentrations described in section IV.C
above, or other data (including but not limited to leachate data or
groundwater monitoring data from the final land disposal facility)
relevant to the delisted waste indicates that any constituent is at a
concentration in waste above specified delisting verification
concentrations in Table 3, Sandvik must notify the Agency within 10
days of first possessing or being made aware of the data. The exclusion
will be suspended and the waste managed as hazardous until Sandvik has
received written approval from the EPA to continue the exclusion.
Sandvik may provide sampling results which support the continuation of
the delisting exclusion.
The EPA has the authority under RCRA and the Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et seq. to reopen a delisting
decision if we receive new information indicating that the conditions
of this exclusion have been violated, or are otherwise not being met.
G. What must Sandvik do if the process changes?
If Sandvik significantly changes the manufacturing or treatment
process or the chemicals used in the manufacturing or treatment
process, Sandvik may not handle the wastewater treatment sludge
generated from the new process under this exclusion until it has
demonstrated to the EPA that the waste meets the concentrations set
forth in section IV.C and that no new hazardous constituents listed in
Appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261 have been introduced. Sandvik must
manage wastes generated after the process change as hazardous waste
until Sandvik has received written notice from the EPA that the
demonstration has been accepted.
V. How would this action affect the states?
Because the EPA is proposing to issue this exclusion under the
federal RCRA delisting regulations, only states subject to federal RCRA
delisting provisions will be affected. This exclusion may not be
effective in states which have received authorization from the EPA to
make their own delisting decisions.
The EPA allows states to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory
requirements that are more stringent than the EPA's, under Sec. 3009
of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that
prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the state.
We urge petitioners to contact the state regulatory authority to
establish the status of their wastes under the state law.
The EPA has also authorized some states to administer a delisting
program in place of the federal program, that is, to make state
delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those
authorized states. If Sandvik manages the waste in any state with
delisting authorization, Sandvik must obtain delisting authorization or
other determination from the receiving state before it can manage the
waste as nonhazardous in that state.
While Washington State has received final authorization to
implement most of its dangerous waste program regulations in lieu of
the federal program, including the listing and identification of F006
wastes (See 51 FR 3782 (January 30, 1986), it has not been authorized
to implement its delisting regulations program in lieu of the federal
program. The EPA notes that Washington State has provisions in the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-303-910(3) similar to the
federal provisions upon which this delisting is based. These provisions
are in effect as a matter of state law. Thus, Sandvik must seek
approval from Washington State at the state level in addition to this
proposed delisting.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This proposed action is exempt from review by the Office of
Management and Budget because it is a rule of particular applicability,
not general applicability.
[[Page 46134]]
The proposed action approves a delisting petition under RCRA for the
petitioned waste at a particular facility.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This proposed action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because actions such as approval of delisting petitions under
RCRA are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action 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 only applies to a particular facility.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a
particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility
provision of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This proposed action does not contain any unfunded mandate as
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and
does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action
imposes no new enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector.
G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed action 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.
H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This proposed action does not have tribal implications as specified
in Executive Order 13175. This proposed action applies only to a
particular facility on non-tribal land. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.
I. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This proposed action's health and
risk assessments using the Agency's Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS), which considers health and safety risks to children, are
described in section III.E above. The technical support document and
the user's guide for DRAS are included in the docket.
J. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This proposed action does not involve technical standards as
described by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
L. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this proposed action does not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or
indigenous peoples. The EPA has determined that this proposed action
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, as described in section
III.E above, 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, the 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.
M. Congressional Review Act
This proposed action is exempt from the Congressional Review Act (5
U.S.C. 801 et seq.) because it is a rule of particular applicability.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 21, 2018.
Jan Hastings,
Deputy Director, Office of Air and Waste.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 261 as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and
6938.
0
2. Amend Table 1 of Appendix IX to Part 261 by adding the following
waste stream entry ``Sandvik Special Metals'' in alphabetical order to
read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 1--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sandvik Special Metals.................. Kennewick, Washington...... Wastewater treatment sludges, F006,
generated at Sandvik Special Metals
(Sandvik) facility in Kennewick,
Washington at a maximum annual rate of
1,500 cubic yards per year. The sludge
must be disposed of in a Subtitle D
landfill which is licensed, permitted,
or otherwise authorized by a state to
accept the delisted wastewater treatment
sludge. The exclusion becomes effective
as of [the date of final publication].
1. Delisting Levels: (A) The constituent
concentrations in a representative
sample of the waste must not exceed the
following levels: Total concentrations
(mg/kg): Arsenic--9,840; Cadmium--
37,100; Chromium--77,500; Cobalt--
103,000. TCLP Concentrations (mg/l in
the waste extract): Arsenic--0.042;
Barium--100; Cadmium--0.451; Chromium--
5.00; Cobalt--1.06; Copper--120;
Fluoride--194; Lead--2.95; Nickel--66.4;
Silver--5.00; Vanadium--16.9; Zinc--992.
[[Page 46135]]
2. Annual Verification Testing: To verify
that the waste does not exceed the
delisting concentrations specified in
Section 1.A, Sandvik must collect and
analyze one representative waste sample
with coolant on an annual basis no later
than each anniversary of the effective
date of this delisting using methods
with appropriate detection
concentrations and elements of quality
control. If both titanium and zirconium
products have been in production and
contributed to candidate wastes within
the three-month period prior to each
anniversary of the effective date of
this delisting, samples of waste from
both manufacturing processes must be
collected for that reporting cycle.
Otherwise, sampling only of that
material in production within the
specified three-month period is
required. Sampling data must be provided
to the EPA no later 60 days following
each anniversary of the effective date
of this delisting, or such later date as
the EPA may agree to in writing. Sandvik
must conduct all verification sampling
according to a written sampling plan and
associated quality assurance project
plan that ensures analytical data are
suitable for their intended use, which
must be made available to the EPA upon
request. Sandvik's annual submission
must also include a certification that
all wastes satisfying the delisting
concentrations in Condition 1.A have
been disposed of in a Subtitle D
landfill which is licensed, permitted,
or otherwise authorized by a state to
accept the delisted wastewater treatment
sludge.
3. Changes in Operating Conditions:
Sandvik must notify the EPA in writing
if it significantly changes the
manufacturing process, the chemicals
used in the manufacturing process, the
treatment process, or the chemicals used
in the treatment process. Sandvik must
handle wastes generated after the
process change as hazardous until it has
demonstrated that the wastes continue to
meet the delisting concentrations in
section 1.C, demonstrated that no new
hazardous constituents listed in 40 CFR
part 261 Appendix VIII have been
introduced into the manufacturing
process or waste treatment process, and
it has received written approval from
the EPA that it may continue to manage
the waste as non-hazardous.
4. Data Submittals: Sandvik must submit
the data obtained through verification
testing or as required by other
conditions of this rule to the Director,
Office of Air and Waste, U.S. EPA Region
10, 1200 6th Avenue Suite 155, OAW-150,
Seattle, Washington, 98070 or his or her
equivalent. The annual verification data
and certification of proper disposal
must be submitted within 60 days after
each anniversary of the effective date
of this delisting exclusion, or such
later date as the EPA may agree to in
writing. Sandvik must compile,
summarize, and maintain on-site for a
minimum of five years, records of
analytical data required by this rule,
and operating conditions relevant to
those data. Sandvik must make these
records available for inspection. All
data must be accompanied by a signed
copy of the certification statement in
40 CFR 260.22(i)(12). If Sandvik fails
to submit the required data within the
specified time or maintain the required
records on-site for the specified time,
the EPA may, at its discretion, consider
such failure a sufficient basis to
reopen the exclusion as described in
paragraph 5.
5. Reopener Language--(A) If, any time
after disposal of the delisted waste,
Sandvik possesses or is otherwise made
aware of any data relevant to the
delisted waste indicating that any
constituent is at a higher than the
specified delisting concentration, then
Sandvik must report such data, in
writing, to the Director, Office of Air
and Waste, EPA, Region 10, or his or her
equivalent, within 10 days of first
possessing or being made aware of that
data. (B) Based on the information
described in paragraph (A) and any other
information received from any source,
the EPA will make a preliminary
determination as to whether the reported
information requires Agency action to
protect human health or the environment.
Further action may include suspending,
or revoking the exclusion, or other
appropriate response necessary to
protect human health and the
environment.
(C) If the EPA determines that the
reported information does require Agency
action, the EPA will notify Sandvik in
writing of the actions it believes are
necessary to protect human health and
the environment. The notice shall
include a statement of the proposed
action and a statement providing Sandvik
with an opportunity to present
information as to why the proposed
Agency action is not necessary or to
suggest an alternative action. Sandvik
shall have 30 days from the date of the
EPA's notice to present the information.
(D) If after 30 days Sandvik presents no
further information or after a review of
any submitted information, the EPA will
issue a final written determination
describing the Agency actions that are
necessary to protect human health or the
environment. Any required action
described in the EPA's determination
shall become effective immediately,
unless the EPA provides otherwise.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2018-19595 Filed 9-11-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
