Hazardous Waste Management System; Proposed Exclusion for Identifying and Listing Hazardous Waste, 60975-60985 [2019-23830]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
60975
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
EPA-APPROVED NEBRASKA REGULATIONS—Continued
Nebraska
citation
Title
*
129–2 .............
*
Definition of Major Source
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
State effective
date
2/6/2008
*
PART 70—STATE OPERATING PERMIT
PROGRAMS
6. The authority citation for part 70
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
7. Appendix A to part 70 is amended
by:
■ a. Adding paragraph (u) under
‘‘Iowa’’.
■ b. Adding paragraph (q) under
‘‘Nebraska; City of Omaha; LincolnLancaster County Health Department’’.
The additions read as follows:
■
*
*
*
*
Iowa
*
*
*
*
*
(u) The Iowa Department of Natural
Resources submitted revisions to Iowa
Chapter 22.100 ‘‘Definitions for Title V
Operating Permits’’ on November 15,
2007. The State revised the definition of
‘‘Stationary source categories’’ by
revising the definition of ‘‘Chemical
process plants’’ such that fugitive
emissions from certain ethanol
production facilities are not considered
in determining whether the facility is
subject to Title V permitting. The State
effective date is October 4, 2007. The
proposed revision effective date is [date
30 days after date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register].
*
*
*
*
*
Nebraska; City of Omaha; LincolnLancaster County Health Department
*
*
*
*
*
(q) The Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality submitted
revisions to the Nebraska
Administrative Code, title 129, chapter
2, section 002.20 on November 19, 2010.
Chapter 2, section 002.20 was revised to
exclude ethanol production facilities
from the definition of ‘‘chemical process
plants’’ such that fugitive emissions are
not considered in determining whether
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 08, 2019
Jkt 250001
Explanation
*
[Date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal
Register], [Federal
Register citation of the
final rule].
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
the facility is subject to Title V
permitting. The State effective date is
February 6, 2008. The proposed revision
effective date is [date 30 days after date
of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register].
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2019–23979 Filed 11–8–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R10–RCRA–2019–0662; SW–FRL–
10001–79–Region 10]
Appendix A to Part 70—Approval
Status of State and Local Operating
Permits
*
EPA approval
date
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
three petitions submitted jointly by
Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC
(Emerald) and Fire Mountain Farms,
Inc. (FMF) (Petitioners), in Lewis
County, Washington to exclude (or
‘‘delist’’) a one-time amount up to
20,100 cubic yards of U019 (benzene)
and U220 (toluene) mixed material from
the list of federal hazardous wastes.
These wastes are limited to those
associated with closure of hazardous
waste management units at three
facilities owned and operated by FMF
pursuant to closure plans to be
approved by the Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology). The
Agency is proposing to grant the
petition based on an evaluation of
waste-specific information provided by
the Petitioners. This proposed decision,
if finalized, conditionally excludes the
petitioned waste from the requirements
of hazardous waste regulations under
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 12, 2019. Requests
for an informal hearing must reach the
EPA by November 27, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
RCRA–2019–0662 using one of the
following methods:
• 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, M/S 15–H04,
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–2019–
0662. 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
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
60976
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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 Land, Chemicals and
Redevelopment Division, EPA, Region
10, 1200 6th Ave., Suite 155, M/S 15–
H04, 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, M/S 16–C09, 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, M/S 15–H04,
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,
Ecology is evaluating the Petitioners’
petitions under state authority.
Information on Ecology’s action may be
found at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/
publications/SummaryPages/
1907021.html.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The information in this section is
organized as follows:
I. Overview Information
II. Background
A. What is are the listed wastes associated
with this petition?
B. What is a delisting petition?
C. What factors did EPA consider in
deciding whether to grant a delisting
petition?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 08, 2019
Jkt 250001
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What waste did the Petitioners petition
EPA to delist?
B. How did the Petitioners generate the
waste?
C. How did the Petitioners sample and
analyze the petitioned waste?
D. What were the results of EPA’s analysis
of the Petitioner’s waste?
E. How did the EPA evaluate the risk of
delisting this waste?
F. What are EPA’s proposed findings
regarding the petitioned wastes?
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. How will the Petitioners manage the
waste if it is delisted?
B. What are the maximum allowable
concentrations of hazardous constituents
in the waste?
C. How frequently must the Petitioners test
the waste?
D. What data must the Petitioners submit?
E. What happens if the Petitioners fail to
meet the conditions of the exclusion?
F. What must the Petitioners do if the
process changes?
V. When would the EPA finalize the
proposed delisting exclusion?
VI. How would this action affect states?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
The EPA is proposing to grant three
petitions submitted jointly by Emerald
Kalama Chemical, LLC (Emerald) and
Fire Mountain Farms, Inc (FMF)
(Petitioners), in Lewis County,
Washington to exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) a
one-time combined amount up to 20,100
cubic yards of U019 (benzene) and U220
(toluene) hazardous wastes from the list
of federal hazardous waste set forth in
40 Code of Federal Regulations CFR
261.33.1 These three petitions apply to
three separate facilities owned and
operated by FMF, and each manage
wastes that are sufficiently similar that
the EPA is electing to propose its
decision to grant the petitions
concurrently through this Federal
Register notice. The Petitioners claim
that each of the petitioned wastes do 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. These
exclusions apply only to wastes
associated with closure of hazardous
waste management units at the three
FMF facilities pursuant to an approved
closure plan. The exclusion is effective
when the wastes are removed from the
respective hazardous waste management
units, or otherwise generated pursuant
to the corresponding approved closure
plan.
Based on our review described in
Section III, we propose to make a
1 The facility-specific waste volumes are
documented in Section III.A.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
determination that the petitioned wastes
are non-hazardous with respect to listed
waste codes that originally applied. As
part of our supporting analysis, we
reviewed the description of the process
which generated the wastes and the
analytical data submitted by the
Petitioners. We believe that the
petitioned wastes do not meet the
criteria for which the waste was
originally listed, that they do not exhibit
any hazardous waste characteristic, and
that there are no other factors which
might cause the waste to be hazardous.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to find
that the petitioned wastes may be safely
managed as non-listed hazardous
wastes. EPA notes that while the burden
of demonstrating that a delisted waste
does not also exhibit a hazardous
characteristic remains with the facility,
the data provided by the Petitioners
demonstrate that the candidate wastes
do not exhibit a hazardous
characteristic. 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, the petitioned wastes must
be disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill
which is permitted, licensed, or
registered by a State to manage
industrial solid waste.
II. Background
A. What are the listed wastes associated
with this petition?
The EPA published an amended list
of discarded commercial chemical
products, off-specification species,
container residues and spill residues
thereof on November 25, 1980 (45 FR
78541), 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 261.33.
We list these wastes as hazardous
because: (1) They typically and
frequently exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous wastes
identified in 40 CFR part 261 Subpart C
(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 from a source listed in the
regulations as ‘‘hazardous’’ is by
definition hazardous, a specific waste
from an individual generating facility
and from a source meeting the listing
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
description may produce wastes that
vary significantly from the wastes EPA
considered in establishing the waste
listing.
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
that a specific waste from a particular
generating facility should not be
regulated as hazardous.2
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
EPA to decide whether any factors in
addition to those for which the waste
was listed warrant retaining it as a
hazardous waste. (See 40 CFR 260.22
and 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).) EPA’s basis for
originally listing the wastes associated
with this petition may be found at 45 FR
78532.
If a delisting petition is granted, the
specific waste(s) identified in the
delisting will be excluded from the
associated lists(s) of hazardous waste in
40 CFR part 261 Subpart D so long as
conditions in the delisting are met. A
waste which is so excluded, however,
may still exhibit a characteristic and
thus be a hazardous waste by operation
of 40 CFR part 261 Subpart C. EPA notes
that while the burden of demonstrating
that a delisted waste does not also
exhibit a hazardous characteristic
remains with the facility, the data
provided by the Petitioners demonstrate
that the candidate wastes do not exhibit
a hazardous characteristic.
C. What factors did 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) through (4). We
evaluated the petitioned wastes against
the listing criteria and factors cited in
§ 261.11(a)(2) and (3).
In addition to the criteria in 40 CFR
260.22(a), 261.11(a)(2) and (3), 42 U.S.C.
6921(f), and in the background
2 Washington State’s promulgated regulations at
WAC 173–303–910(3) correspondence to the federal
regulation. However, Washington State has not
received final authorization to implement these
regulations in lieu of 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
16:51 Nov 08, 2019
Jkt 250001
documents for the listed wastes, EPA
also considered 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
petitions to delist the waste from the
identified FMF facilities in Lewis
County, Washington is based on our
evaluation of the wastes 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 ‘‘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 the Petitioners
petition the EPA to delist?
Emerald manufactures various organic
chemicals used as artificial flavors and
fragrances, food preservatives,
plasticizers, and intermediates at their
facility in Kalama, Washington. Most of
the chemicals produced are derived
from toluene or from the oxidation
products of toluene, including benzoic
acid and benzaldehyde. Additional
products are produced as derivatives of
benzoic acid and benzaldehyde.
Products are typically purified by
continuous or batch distillation. In
conjunction with its manufacturing
processes, Emerald operates an
industrial wastewater treatment system,
consisting of an anaerobic digestion
process and an aerobic oxidation
system, both of which are biological
treatment systems very similar to
municipal wastewater treatment
systems. This treatment system
produces industrial wastewater
treatment plant biological solids (IWBS).
As documented in the Petitioner’s
delisting petition, the IWBS designates
as U019 (benzene) and U220 (toluene).
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
60977
FMF operates receiving, storage,
treatment, and land application
facilities in Lewis County, Washington
for wastewater treatment plant
treatment solids received from
municipal, industrial, and private
wastewater treatment plants. FMF is not
permitted or otherwise authorized to
manage, treat, or dispose of hazardous
or dangerous wastes.3 Emerald
contracted with FMF to land apply
Emerald’s IWBS beginning in October
1995. FMF mixed Emerald’s IWBS with
treatment solids from other facilities
and land applied or stored the mixed
IWBS/treatment solids wastes at several
FMF facilities. The RCRA rules require
that listed hazardous wastes, when
mixed with other materials, continue to
be regulated as listed hazardous wastes
(40 CFR 261.3). The mixed IWBS/
treatment solids wastes are currently
stored at three FMF facilities: Burnt
Ridge located at 856 Burnt Ridge Road,
Onalaska, Washington; Newaukum
Prairie located at 349 State Route 508,
Chehalis, Washington; and Big Hanaford
located at 307 Big Hanaford Road,
Centralia, Washington.4 Under a
separate action (See footnote 4), the
Washington State Department of
Ecology is requiring that Emerald and
FMF remove these wastes from the three
units according to closure plans
approved pursuant to WAC 173–303–
610.
The Petitioners have requested that
up to 4,700 cubic yards at the Burnt
Ridge facility, 10,400 cubic yards at the
Newaukum Prairie facility, and 5,000
cubic yards at the Big Hanaford facility
of IWBS/treatment solids be excluded
from the list of hazardous wastes.5
3 Within Ecology’s authorized hazardous waste
program, ‘‘hazardous’’ refers to those wastes
regulated by the federal RCRA program.
‘‘Dangerous’’ refers to additional wastes that
Ecology’s regulates as a broader in scope provision
of their program.
4 The Washington State Department of Ecology
has entered into a litigation settlement (Docket
Entry 3) with Fire Mountain Farms and EmeraldKalama that, in part, requires closure of the units
managing dangerous waste considered int his
proposed delisting rule. In this context, today’s
proposed delisting rule is a ‘‘one-time’’ delisting
that, if finalized, will allow the fixed volume of
wastes to be generated pursuant to closure of these
three units as non-hazardous.
5 The delisting petitions submitted by the
Petitioners requested exclusion of a waste volumes
less than those cited in this proposed rule. Because
these wastes will be managed on a one-time basis
as part of closure of the respective waste
management units at the three FMF facilities, the
EPA and Ecology have determined that it is
appropriate to propose exclusion of a waste volume
double that in the respective delisting petitions as
a safety measure that will account for any
additional wastes that may be generated pursuant
to closure activities such as liners, debris, etc. The
EPA notes that the requested quantity of wastes in
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
Continued
12NOP1
60978
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
B. How did the Petitioners generate the
waste?
In a delisting petition for its IWBS
wastes separate from today’s proposed
exclusions, Emerald documented that
its industrial wastewater treatment
system from which IWBS is derived
manages wastewaters from multiple
sources within the facility. The first
source consists of contaminated
groundwater from an extensive
groundwater recovery system to prevent
contaminated water from leaving the
plant site. Water pumped from the
North Impact Area (NIA), West Impact
Area (WIA), and Intermediate Sand
Recovery Wells (ISRW) contains
commercial product toluene from
historical releases and therefore the
IWBS carry the listed hazardous waste
code U220 (toluene). Historical data
from 2014 through 2017 indicates that
an average of 33.1 million gallons per
year with a maximum of 38.6 million
gallon per year was treated in the
wastewater treatment unit (WWTU) that
generates IWBS. The second source
consists of stormwater that falls on the
manufacturing process areas of the
facility, which may become
contaminated by spills or releases of the
various raw materials, intermediates,
products or byproducts of its
manufacturing operations. The third
source consists of process wastewater
from manufacturing processes. These
second and third sources may be
impacted by trace amounts of pure
product benzene from de minimus spills
that are captured by the treatment
system; therefore, the IWBS from the
second and third source categories carry
the listed hazardous waste code U019
(benzene).
Emerald provided the EPA with a
detailed process flow diagram (Docket
Entry 1) of the overall wastewater
management system that documents the
source of all wastewaters from which
the candidate IWBS are generated and
the various management processes that
are applied to the wastewaters.
Generally, process wastewater expected
to have higher quantities of organic
constituents from process units is
routed to either the anaerobic digesters
(ANTs) or to the aerobic digesters
(BIOX), depending upon the types and
concentrations of chemicals present. All
of the effluent from ANTs is routed to
the delisting petition itself was expressed on a mass
(ton) basis. The ‘‘Waste Characterization Plan, Fire
Mountain Farms, Mixed Material Storage Units,
Lewis County, Washington’’ included in the
petition, however, estimates the quantity of waste
on a volumetric basis. The expanded waste volume
in this proposed delisting reflect a doubling of the
volumetric waste volumetric estimate documented
in the Waste Characterization Plan.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 08, 2019
Jkt 250001
BIOX for final treatment. Groundwater
and stormwater 6 with a low chemical
oxygen demand (COD) are routed to the
aerobic digesters (BIOX). This process
flow arrangement, including flexibility
to re-route wastewaters depending on
their chemical makeup, helps ensure
that concentrated free product from
manufacturing process wastes or from
spills is not introduced into the balance
of the wastewater treatment system, and
that the concentration of waste
constituents entering the treatment
system is maintained in a range that
fosters microbial degradation.
Wastewaters from the API separator are
then routed to the aerobic digester
system. The use of the API separator for
wastewaters expected to have higher
levels of organic constituents helps
ensure that significant excursions in
waste composition do not adversely
affect performance of the wastewater
treatment system. The effluent of the
ANTS system is then routed to the
aerobic digester and sludge filtration
systems. Groundwater and stormwater
expected to have lower COD levels
bypass the API separator and are fed
directly to the aerobic digester treatment
system.
At the Burnt Ridge facility, FMF
mixed IWBS from Emerald, treatment
solids from municipal and industrial
wastewater treatment plants, and cow
manure water runoff from a barn in a
surface impoundment that has
approximate dimensions of 220 feet on
each side and 14 feet deep. Once FMF
mixed the IWBS with the other material,
the mixed material became regulated as
U019 and U220 listed hazardous wastes
as noted earlier.
At the Newaukum Prairie facility,
FMF mixed IWBS from Emerald and
treatment solids from municipal and
industrial wastewater treatment plants
in a surface impoundment that has
approximate dimensions of 220 feet on
each side and 12 feet deep. Once FMF
mixed the IWBS with the other material,
the mixed material became regulated as
U019 and U220 listed hazardous wastes.
At the Big Hanaford facility, FMF
mixed IWBS from Emerald and
treatment solids from municipal and
private wastewater treatment plants in a
roofed concrete panel storage unit that
has approximate dimensions of 100 feet
by 60 feet and 11.5 feet deep. Once FMF
mixed the IWBS with the other material,
the mixed material became regulated as
U019 and U220 listed hazardous wastes.
6 Emerald also provide the EPA with a map of the
facility indicating areas where stormwater is
collected from various areas of the facility. See
Docket Entry 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
C. How did the Petitioners sample and
analyze the petitioned wastes?
FMF conducted an investigation of
the wastes at each of the three storage
units in September 2014.7 Three
composite samples of the mixed IWBS/
treatment solids wastes were collected
from each storage unit. At Burnt Ridge
and Newaukum Prairie, each composite
sample consisted of nine grab samples
collected from various depths. Each
composite sample collected at Big
Hanaford consisted of six grab samples
collected from various depths.
Each composite sample was analyzed
for the following constituents or
constituent groups: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOCs), total
metals, total cyanide, and total solids.
The specific analytes included in the
analysis are defined by the analytical
method used for each group.
In addition, two composite samples
from the Newaukum Prairie storage unit
and one composite sample each from
the Burnt Ridge and Big Hanaford
storage units were analyzed for the
following parameters or constituent
groups: Pesticides; polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB) Aroclors; dioxins and
furans, reported as 2,3,7,8tetrachlorodibenzodioxin toxicity
equivalence quotient (2,3,7,8–TCDD
TEQ); ammonia; Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
(TKN); pH, nitrite; and nitrate + nitrite
(the concentration of nitrate was
calculated by the analytical laboratory).
Fourteen grab samples from the
Newaukum Prairie storage unit and
seven grab samples each from the Burnt
Ridge and Big Hanaford storage units
were analyzed for total fecal coliform.
Emerald conducted additional
sampling of the mixed IWBS/treatment
solids wastes at each of the three storage
units in August and October 2017.8
Emerald performed the additional
sampling based on the preliminary
delisting levels and the September 2014
investigation. Samples from the storage
units at Burnt Ridge, Newaukum Prairie,
and Big Hanaford were analyzed for
selected volatile organic compounds
(acetone, benzene, methanol, and
toluene), total solids, and pH. Samples
from Big Hanaford were analyzed for
total acrylonitrile; cobalt; 4methylphenol; 2,4-dinitrotoluene; 2,6dinitrotoluene; and naphthalene.
7 This investigation is documented in the first
report in Appendix C of the three delisting petitions
(Docket Entries 7–9).
8 Results of these sampling activities are
documented in the third report in Appendix C of
the three delisting petitions (Docket Entries 7–9).
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
D. What were the results of EPA’s
analysis of the Petitioner’s waste?
The first step in the EPA’s analysis of
the petitioned wastes was to establish a
list of potential constituents of concern
(COCs) to guide further analysis of the
waste and to establish initial delisting
exclusion criteria. The EPA applied four
criteria for identifying potential
constituents of concern: (1) Whether the
constituent is used as an input to, or
created as an intermediate, byproduct or
finished product from Emerald’s
production processes; (2) whether the
IWBS designates as hazardous for a
particular constituent; (3) the expected
frequency of occurrence in the IWBS;
and (4) the toxicity of the constituent of
concern. The EPA also considered
results of the 2014 waste
characterization study in Appendix C of
the three petitions, as well as any
additional constituents that may be
typically found in municipal
wastewater treatment biosolids.
The EPA first considered organic
COCs. Based on the hazardous waste
codes associated with wastewater that
ultimately results in generation of IWBS
(D018, U019, U220, U154 and U001),
the EPA determined that benzene,
toluene, methanol and acetaldehyde are
COCs.9 The EPA notes that benzene is
generally regarded as difficult to treat
and is an excellent indicator of overall
performance of the WWTU processes,
and the ability of the WWTU to
effectively treat other organic
constituents other than benzene. Based
on principal products of Emerald’s
processes, the EPA determined that
additional organic constituents
including benzaldehyde, benzoic acid,
formic acid, benzyl alcohol, and phenol
should be retained as COCs. While at
least some of these constituents are
associated with products for human
consumption or exposure, they have a
level of toxicity that warrants retention
as COCs for purposes of evaluating the
candidate waste stream. Although
several additional organic constituents
are associated with Emerald’s
production processes, they are
associated with products for human
consumption or exposure, such as food
preservatives and vitamins, fragrances
and perfumes, and sunscreens, and do
not have a degree of toxicity that
9 As noted in the delisting petition, IWBS
designate only for U019 (benzene) and U220
(toluene) because due to an exception to RCRA’s
derived from rule, certain codes applicable to the
wastewater do not carry through to the IWBS.
However, as part of its evaluation of the IWBS
waste stream and identification of COCs, the EPA
also considered hazardous waste codes applicable
to the wastewaters managed by the WWTU
generating IWBS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 08, 2019
Jkt 250001
warrants retention as COCs (Docket
Entry 17). In addition, most if not all
these additional organic constituents are
highly amenable to biological treatment
in the WWTS and are not expected to
be present in the IWBS at levels
anywhere near health-based levels that
would be of concern in the delisting
process.
Emerald’s production process uses a
range of catalysts, including several
metallic catalysts that include cobalt,
copper and nickel. On this basis, cobalt,
copper and nickel are identified as
constituents of concern. Although these
three metals are not hazardous
constituents, they are retained as ‘‘other
factors’’ that may cause the waste to be
retained as hazardous. Other metallic
constituents are reported to have been
detected in the IWBS waste stream that
do not have a clear source related to
Emerald’s organic manufacturing
process. These constituents include
barium and zinc. Barium is a hazardous
constituent and is present at levels in
the IWBS so barium is retained as an
‘‘other factor’’ that may cause the waste
to be retained as hazardous. Zinc is a
common contaminant in industrial
wastewater and is found in the IWBS at
concentrations as high as 1,350 ppm dry
weight, so zinc is retained as a
constituent as an ‘‘other factor’’ that
may cause the waste to be retained as
hazardous.
In Emerald’s production process,
cobalt is used as a catalyst in both its
metallic form (sponge cobalt) and as
cobalt acetate. Although cobalt acetate
poses environmental and human health
risks, the acetate functional group is
expected to be readily degraded in the
WWTS, leaving metallic cobalt in the
IWBS. Further, cobalt acetate is soluble
in water, so that any remaining cobalt
acetate that is not degraded to metallic
cobalt in the WWTS is likely to partition
into the effluent wastewater managed
separately from the IWBS. Thus, all
forms of cobalt are considered to be
metallic for purposes of the delisting
evaluation of Emerald’s IWBS.
Emerald’s IWBS only constitute a
small percentage (between 5% and 8%)
of the total mixed IWBS/treatment
solids wastes at each of the three storage
units.
With respect to the biosolids
component of the petitioned waste, the
2014 waste characterization report in
Appendix C of the delisting petitions
considered a very broad range of
potential constituents of concern. The
EPA first compared these
characterization data reports to
preliminary delisting levels (See the
second report in Appendix C of the
delisting petitions) calculated using the
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
60979
Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS) model.10 Any detected
constituents at concentrations less than
the preliminary delisting levels were
removed from further consideration.11
The remaining detected constituents
exceeding a preliminary delisting level
were retained for further evaluation in
the 2017 waste characterization plan,
also included in the second report in
Appendix C of the delisting petitions.
Results from this latter characterization
work were then used as input to the
DRAS modelling program discussed in
the following section. After
consideration of constituents typically
found in biosolids (for example, as
documented in the U.S. EPA National
Sewage Sludge Survey available at
https://www.epa.gov/biosolids/sewagesludge-surveys), the EPA determined
that no additional constituents of
concern should be added for
consideration in the delisting process.
The final list of constituents of
concern evaluated in the delisting
process are documented in Tables 2–4
below.
E. How did the EPA evaluate the risk of
delisting this waste?
For this delisting determination, we
evaluated the risk that the waste would
be disposed of as a non-hazardous waste
in a RCRA Subtitle D landfill and we
considered transport of waste
constituents through ground water,
surface water and air. We evaluated the
Petitioner’s analysis of petitioned waste
using the DRAS software 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/
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 through
ingestion of contaminated groundwater,
10 Preliminary delisting levels were obtained for
all DRAS constituents on a unit-specific basis
considering the expected waste volume associated
with each unit to be closed.
11 The specific decision criteria that considered
total concentrations, bounding leachability, and
laboratory analysis detection limits are documented
in the second report in Appendix C of the delisting
petitions.
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
60980
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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
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
technical support document and the
user’s guide to DRAS are available at
https://www.epa.gov/hw/hazardouswaste-delisting-risk-assessmentsoftware-dras.
The EPA used the following inputs to
its DRAS analysis of the Petitioner’s
wastes, as summarized in Table 2.
TABLE 1—EMERALD AND FMF DELISTING DRAS INPUT
DRAS Input parameter
Value
Assumptions
Waste Management Unit Type ............
Landfill 12 .................................................................
Waste Volume—one-year batch ..........
Waste Management Unit Active Life ...
4,700 cubic yards for Burnt Ridge; 10,400 cubic
yards for Newaukum Prairie; 5,000 cubic yards
for Big Hanaford.
One Year Batch ......................................................
Waste planned for disposal in a municipal solid
waste landfill.
Conservative estimation value based on facilityspecific information.
Target risk—carcinogenic risk level .....
1 × 10¥5 ..................................................................
Target risk—health quotient .................
1.0 ...........................................................................
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. The EPA used the maximum
N/A—DRAS does not allow a year input for the
One Year Batch.
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).
estimated waste volumes 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. Tables 2, 3, and 4 document the
constituent-specific maximum total and
TCLP sample results used as input to
the DRAS analysis, and the resulting
modeling results from DRAS for the
Burnt Ridge, Newaukum Prairie, and
Big Hanaford storage units, respectively.
TABLE 2—SAMPLING DATA AND DRAS MODELING RESULTS FOR BURNT RIDGE
Maximum observed
concentration 1
Modeling results
Total concentrations
TCLP concentration
Constituent of concern
Total 1
(mg/kg)
Barium ...........................
Cobalt ............................
Copper ...........................
Nickel .............................
Zinc ................................
Benzaldehyde ................
Benzene ........................
Benzoic Acid ..................
Formic Acid ...................
Benzyl alcohol ...............
Methanol ........................
Phenol ...........................
Toluene ..........................
TCLP
(mg/L) 4
N/A
48
417
45
969
N/A
0.00101
N/A
N/A
N/A
<0.01 U
<0.310 U
0.035
Limiting
concentration
(mg/kg) 2
N/A
0.108
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
21,100,000
94,400
18,200,000
3,540,000
47,100,000
2,320,000,000
1,600,000
83,100,000,000
8,080,000
11,600,000,000
11,600,000,000
6,950,000,000
369,000,000
Limiting concentration
(mg/L) 2
Limiting pathway 3
Air Particulate Inhalation .........
Air Particulate Inhalation .........
Fish Ingestion ..........................
Air Particulate Inhalation .........
Fish Ingestion ..........................
Soil Ingestion ...........................
Air Volatile Inhalation ..............
Fish Ingestion ..........................
Air Volatile Inhalation ..............
Soil Ingestion ...........................
Soil Ingestion ...........................
Soil Ingestion ...........................
Fish Ingestion ..........................
1,090
6.28
716
408
6,170
1,760
2.35
70,400
1,130
8,800
8,800
5,280
460
Limiting pathway 3
Maximum Contaminant Level.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Maximum Contaminant Level.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Maximum Contaminant Level.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Groundwater Inhalation.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Maximum Contaminant Level.
1 Maximum
concentration documented in the Petitioner’s Burnt Ridge delisting petition, Tables B–1, B–3, and B–4.
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.
12 Although two of the petitioned waste streams
originate in a surface impoundment, the wastes
being delisted will be removed from the surface
impoundments through an approved closure
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 08, 2019
Jkt 250001
process. The removed wastes will be managed in
accordance with the closure plan to allow disposal
in a solid waste landfill. Therefore, the waste
management unit used for modelling waste
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
performance using DRAS is ‘‘Landfill’’ for all three
units.
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
60981
TABLE 3—SAMPLING DATA AND DRAS MODELING RESULTS FOR NEWAUKUM PRAIRIE
Modeling results
Maximum observed
concentration 1
Total concentrations
TCLP concentration
Constituent of concern
Total 1
(mg/kg)
Barium ...........................
Cobalt ............................
Copper ...........................
Nickel .............................
Zinc ................................
Benzaldehyde ................
Benzene ........................
Benzoic Acid ..................
Formic Acid ...................
Benzyl alcohol ...............
Methanol ........................
Phenol ...........................
Toluene ..........................
Limiting
concentration
(mg/kg) 2
TCLP
(mg/L) 4
N/A
89
503
30
1,060
N/A
<0.0039 U
N/A
N/A
N/A
<0.01 U
0.63
150
N/A
0.184
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
11,000,000
49,100
9,290,000
1,840,000
24,000,000
1,210,000,000
955,000
42,500,000,000
4,830,000
6,060,000,000
6,060,000,000
3,640,000,000
189,000,000
Limiting
concentration
(mg/L) 2
Limiting pathway 3
Air Particulate Inhalation .........
Air Particulate Inhalation .........
Fish Ingestion ..........................
Air Particulate Inhalation .........
Fish Ingestion ..........................
Soil Ingestion ...........................
Air Volatile Inhalation ..............
Fish Ingestion ..........................
Air Volatile Inhalation ..............
Soil Ingestion ...........................
Soil Ingestion ...........................
Soil Ingestion ...........................
Fish Ingestion ..........................
498
2.92
332
184
2,820
809
1.08
32,400
519
4,040
4,040
2,430
211
Limiting pathway 3
Maximum Contaminant Level.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Maximum Contaminant Level.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Maximum Contaminant Level.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Groundwater Inhalation.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Maximum Contaminant Level.
1 Maximum
concentration documented in the Petitioner’s Newaukum Prairie delisting petition, Tables B–1, B–3, and B–4.
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.
2 The
TABLE 4—SAMPLING DATA AND DRAS MODELING RESULTS FOR BIG HANAFORD
Maximum observed
concentration 1
Modeling results
Total concentrations
TCLP concentration
Constituent of concern
Total 1
(mg/kg)
Barium ...........................
Cobalt ............................
Copper ...........................
Nickel .............................
Zinc ................................
Benzaldehyde ................
Benzene ........................
Benzoic Acid ..................
Formic Acid ...................
Benzyl alcohol ...............
Methanol ........................
Phenol ...........................
Toluene ..........................
TCLP
(mg/L) 4
N/A
165
521
42
1,100
N/A
0.00115
N/A
N/A
N/A
<0.01 U
23
120
Limiting
concentration
(mg/kg) 2
N/A
1.10
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20,100,000
89,900
17,300,000
3,370,000
44,700,000
2,210,000,000
1,530,000
78,900,000,000
7,760,000
11,000,000,000
11,000,000,000
6,620,000,000
350,000,000
Limiting
concentration
(mg/L) 2
Limiting pathway 3
Air Particulate Inhalation .........
Air Particulate Inhalation .........
Fish Ingestion ..........................
Air Particulate Inhalation .........
Fish Ingestion ..........................
Soil Ingestion ...........................
Air Volatile Inhalation ..............
Fish Ingestion ..........................
Air Volatile Inhalation ..............
Soil Ingestion ...........................
Soil Ingestion ...........................
Soil Ingestion ...........................
Fish Ingestion ..........................
1,030
5.92
674
384
5,800
1,660
2.21
66,300
1,060
8,290
8,290
4,970
433
Limiting pathway 3
Maximum Contaminant Level.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Maximum Contaminant Level.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Maximum Contaminant Level.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Groundwater Inhalation.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Groundwater Ingestion.
Maximum Contaminant Level.
1 Maximum
concentration documented in the Petitioner’s Big Hanaford delisting petition, Tables B–1 and B–3.
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.
F. What are EPA’s proposed findings
regarding the petitioned wastes?
The maximum reported
concentrations of the hazardous
constituents found in these wastes are
presented in the tables above. The tables
also present the maximum allowable
concentrations, above which the waste
is not excluded from the applicable
hazardous waste listings.
We therefore propose to conclude that
the Petitioner’s mixed IWBS/treatment
solids wastes are 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 the Petitioners in their
petitions support the EPA’s proposed
conclusion that the petitioned waste
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 08, 2019
Jkt 250001
does not exhibit any hazardous
characteristic for which the waste is
listed, and that there are no other factors
that would warrant retaining the waste
as hazardous. On this basis, we propose
to grant the Petitioner’s petitions to
delist these wastes. If this exclusion is
finalized, and subject to the conditions
of the final delisting, the Petitioners
must dispose of these wastes in a
Subtitle D landfill permitted or licensed
by a state and will remain obligated to
verify that the wastes continue to meet
the allowable concentrations set forth
here. The Petitioners must also to
demonstrate that the wastes do not
exhibit any hazardous characteristics
pursuant to 40 CFR part 261 Subpart C.
The Petitioners may make this
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
demonstration based on the existing
characterization data provided in the
delisting petition. As noted in Section
II.B, the data provided by the Petitioners
demonstrate that the candidate wastes
do not exhibit a hazardous
characteristic.
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. How will the Petitioners manage the
waste if it is delisted?
If the petitioned wastes are delisted as
proposed, the Petitioners must dispose
of them in a Subtitle D landfill which
is permitted, licensed, or registered by
a state to manage industrial waste.
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
60982
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
B. What are the maximum allowable
concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the waste?
located at FMF’s Burnt Ridge,
Newaukum Prairie, and Big Hanaford
facilities, respectively, must not exceed
the concentrations in Table 5.
Concentrations of the following
constituents measured in the wastes
TABLE 5—VERIFICATION CONSTITUENTS AND COMPLIANCE CONCENTRATIONS DRAS MODEL OUTPUT
Burnt Ridge
Constituent
Total
(mg/kg)
Barium ......................................................
Cobalt .......................................................
Copper .....................................................
Nickel .......................................................
Zinc ..........................................................
Benzaldehyde ..........................................
Benzene ...................................................
Benzoic Acid ............................................
Formic Acid ..............................................
Benzyl alcohol ..........................................
Methanol ..................................................
Phenol ......................................................
Toluene ....................................................
N/A
94,400
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
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 proposing to require the Petitioners
to perform sampling and analysis for
that constituent and sampling type (total
or TCLP). In these instances, the
corresponding entry in Table 5 above is
‘‘N/A.’’
C. How frequently must the Petitioners
test the waste?
The Petitioner’s delisting petitions
did not provide complete sampling data
for some constituents that EPA has
retained as constituents of concern.
More specifically, characterization data
for barium, benzaldehyde, benzoic acid,
formic acid, and benzyl alcohol, which
are retained as verification constituents,
do not have any existing
characterization data. Therefore, the
candidate wastes are excluded only if
the Petitioners analyze three
representative composite samples of the
mixed IWBS/treatment solids wastes
from each FMF facility for these
constituents prior to the start of closure
activities to demonstrate that the
constituents of concern in the petitioned
waste do not exceed the concentrations
of concern in Section IV.C above. The
Petitioners need only sample an extract
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 08, 2019
Jkt 250001
Newaukum Prarie
TCLP
(mg/l)
Total
(mg/kg)
1,090
6.28
716
408
6,170
1,760
2.35
70,400
1,130
8,800
8,800
5,280
460
N/A
49,100
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
of the wastes from EPA SW–846 Method
1311 for purposes of comparison to the
TCLP standard in Table 5 and Condition
1 of the proposed amendments to 40
CFR part 261. If results of any composite
sample do not reflect compliance with
delisting exclusion limits, the EPA may
require the Petitioners to conduct
additional verification sampling to
better define the volume of waste with
waste constituent concentrations
exceeding the delisting exclusion limits.
The EPA believes that this sampling rate
will provide an appropriate level of
certainty for determining whether or not
all delisted waste satisfy the delisting
criteria presented in Table 5 above. The
Petitioners must use methods with
appropriate analytical sensitivity quality
control procedures, as documented in a
written quality assurance project plan.
EPA publication 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.
D. What data must the Petitioners
submit?
The Petitioners must submit the data
obtained through verification testing to
U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Land,
Chemicals and Redevelopment, 1200
6th Avenue, Suite 155, M/S 15–H04,
Seattle, Washington 98101 within 10
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Big Hanaford
TCLP
(mg/l)
Total
(mg/kg)
498
2.92
332
184
2,820
809
1.08
32,400
519
4,040
4,040
2,430
211
N/A
89,900
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TCLP
(mg/l)
1,030
5.92
674
384
5,800
1,660
2.21
66,300
1,060
8,290
8,290
4,970
433
days after receiving the final results
from the laboratory. The Petitioners
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). Provided that the data
demonstrate compliance with the
verification standards in Condition 1 of
the delisting rule, no further action is
required of the Petitioners.
E. What happens if the Petitioners fail
to meet the conditions of the exclusion?
If the Petitioners violate the terms and
conditions established in the exclusion,
the Agency may start procedures to
withdraw the exclusion. Additionally,
the terms of the exclusion provide that
‘‘[a]ny waste volume for which
representative composite sampling does
not reflect full compliance with the
exclusion criteria in Condition 1 must
continue to be managed as hazardous.’’
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 5, the Petitioners must notify the
Agency within 10 days, or such later
date as the EPA may agree to in writing,
after receiving the final verification
testing results from the laboratory or of
first possessing or being made aware of
other relevant data. The EPA may
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
require the Petitioners to conduct
additional verification sampling to
better define the particular volume of
wastes within the affected unit that does
not fully satisfy delisting criteria. For
any volume of wastes for which the
corresponding representative sample(s)
do not reflect full compliance with
delisting exclusion levels, the exclusion
by its terms does not apply, and the
waste must be managed as hazardous.
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.
F. What must the Petitioners do if the
process changes?
Since the wastes that are the subject
of this proposed de-listing already exist
and are not expected to change as part
of closure process for each of the units
where the wastes are currently stored,
there are no proposed requirements
addressing process changes.
V. 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. Upon receipt and
consideration of all comments, EPA will
publish its final determination as a final
rule. 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.
VI. 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.
RCRA allows states to impose more
stringent regulatory requirements than
RCRA’s under § 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 08, 2019
Jkt 250001
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 states. If the Petitioners manage
the wastes in any state with delisting
authorization, the Petitioners 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 U019
and U220 wastes (See 51 Federal
Register 3782), 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,
the Petitioners must seek de-listing
approval from Washington State in
addition to this proposed delisting for
this delisting to be effective as a matter
of state law in Washington. In the
absence of approval from Washington,
the wastes proposed for de-listing by
EPA in this action will continue to be
regulated as ‘‘dangerous waste’’ under
state law.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/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.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
60983
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
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.).
E. 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.
F. 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.
G. 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.
H. 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.
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
60984
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
I. 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.
J. 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).
K. 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.
L. 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: October 11, 2019.
Timothy B. Hamlin,
Director, Land, Chemicals and
Redevelopment Division.
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 ‘‘Emerald Kalama
Chemical, LLC and Fire Mountain
Farms, Inc’’ in alphabetical order to read
as follows:
■
Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22.
TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
Facility
Address
*
Emerald Kalama
Chemical, LLC and
Fire Mountain
Farms, Inc.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Waste description
*
Lewis County, Washington.
16:51 Nov 08, 2019
Jkt 250001
*
*
*
*
*
Mixtures of hazardous wastewater treatment sludges, U019 (benzene) and U220 (toluene)
and other non-hazardous solid wastes to be removed by Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC
and Fire Mountain Farms, Inc (Petitioners) pursuant to closure plans approved by the
Washington State Department of Ecology and currently in storage in Fire Mountain Farm’s
Burnt Ridge, Newaukum Prarie and Big Hanford facilities in Lewis County, Washington.
The maximum amount of wastes that may be managed pursuant to this exclusion is 4,700
cubic yards at the Burnt Ridge facility, 10,400 cubic yards at the Newaukum Prairie facility,
and 5,000 cubic yards at the Big Hanaford facility, present at each facility as of the effective date of this exclusion, subject to the conditions below. Wastes managed under this exclusion must be disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized by a state to accept the delisted mixed material. The exclusion becomes
effective as of [[the date of final publication].].
1. Delisting Levels: The constituent concentrations in a representative sample of the waste
must not exceed the following levels. For each constituent, the delisting verification level is
provided for Burnt Ridge, Newaukum Prarie and Big Hanaford, respectively. Total concentrations (mg/kg): Cobalt—94,400, 49,100, 89,900; TCLP Concentrations (mg/l in the
waste extract): Barium—1,090, 498, 1,030; Cobalt—6.28, 2.92, 5.92; Copper—716, 332,
674; Nickel—408, 184, 384; Zinc—6,170, 2,820, 5,800; Benzaldehyde—1,760, 809, 1,660;
Benzene—2.35, 1.08, 2.21; Benzoic Acid—70,400, 32,400, 66,300; Formic Acid—1,130,
519, 1,060; Benzyl Alcohol—8,800, 4,040, 8,290; Methanol—8,800, 4,040, 8,290; Phenol—
5,280, 2,430, 4,970; Toluene—460, 211, 433.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
60985
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
2. Verification Testing: To verify that the waste does not exceed the delisting concentrations
specified in Condition 1, the Petitioners must collect and analyze an extract using EPA
SW–846 Method 1311 (TCLP extraction) from three representative composite samples for
barium, benzaldehyde, benzoic acid, formic acid, and benzyl alcohol of the mixed IWBS/
treatment solids wastes from each FMF facility prior to the start of closure activities to
demonstrate that the constituents of concern in the petitioned waste do not exceed the
concentrations of concern in Condition 1. If results from analysis of any composite sample
do not reflect compliance with delisting exclusion limits, the EPA may require the Petitioners to conduct additional verification sampling to better define the volume of waste with
waste constituent concentrations exceeding the delisting exclusion limits. The Petitioners
must conduct all verification sampling according to a written sampling plan and associated
quality assurance project plan which is approved in advance by the EPA that ensures analytical data are suitable for their intended use. Sampling data must be submitted to the
EPA no later than 10 days after receiving the final results from the laboratory, or such later
date as the EPA may agree to in writing. Any waste volume for which representative composite sampling does not reflect full compliance with the exclusion criteria in Condition 1
must continue to be managed as hazardous. The Petitioners must also submit to EPA a
certification that all wastes satisfying the delisting concentrations in Condition 1 have been
disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized by
a state to accept the delisted mixed material of wastewater treatment sludge, and the
quantity of waste disposed from each facility. This submission must be submitted to EPA
within 60 days of completion of closure according to the approved closure plan.
3. Data Submittals: The Petitioners must submit the data obtained through verification testing
and as required by other conditions of this rule, to the Director, Land, Chemical, & Redevelopment Division, U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 6th Avenue Suite 155, M/S 15–H04, Seattle, Washington, 98070 or his or her equivalent. Electronic submission via electronic mail,
physical electronic media (e.g., USB flash drive), or an electronic file transfer system is acceptable. The Petitioners must compile, summarize, and maintain for a minimum of five
years, records of analytical data and waste disposal required by this rule. The Petitioners
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 the Petitioners fail to
submit the required data within the specified time or maintain the required records for the
specified time, the EPA may, at its discretion, consider such failure a sufficient basis to reopen the exclusion as described in Condition 4.
4. Reopener Language: (A) If, any time after disposal of the delisted waste, the Petitioners
possess or are otherwise made aware of any data, including but not limited to leachate
data or groundwater monitoring data from the final land disposal facility, relevant to the
delisted waste indicating that any constituent is at a higher than the specified delisting concentration, then the Petitioners must report such data, in writing, to the Director, Land,
Chemical, & Redevelopment Division, EPA Region 10 at the address above, or his or her
equivalent, within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of those data.
(B) Based on the information described in Condition 4(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 the Petitioners 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 the Petitioners with an opportunity to present information
as to why the proposed Agency action is not necessary or to suggest an alternative action.
The Petitioners shall have 30 days from the date of the EPA’s notice to present the information.
(D) If after 30 days the Petitioners present 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. 2019–23830 Filed 11–8–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 08, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
*
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60975-60985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23830]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R10-RCRA-2019-0662; SW-FRL-10001-79-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 three petitions
submitted jointly by Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC (Emerald) and Fire
Mountain Farms, Inc. (FMF) (Petitioners), in Lewis County, Washington
to exclude (or ``delist'') a one-time amount up to 20,100 cubic yards
of U019 (benzene) and U220 (toluene) mixed material from the list of
federal hazardous wastes. These wastes are limited to those associated
with closure of hazardous waste management units at three facilities
owned and operated by FMF pursuant to closure plans to be approved by
the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). The Agency is
proposing to grant the petition based on an evaluation of waste-
specific information provided by the Petitioners. This proposed
decision, if finalized, conditionally excludes the petitioned waste
from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 12, 2019.
Requests for an informal hearing must reach the EPA by November 27,
2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
RCRA-2019-0662 using one of the following methods:
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, M/S 15-H04, 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-
2019-0662. 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
[[Page 60976]]
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
Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division, EPA, Region 10, 1200 6th
Ave., Suite 155, M/S 15-H04, 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, M/S 16-C09, 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, M/S 15-H04, Seattle, Washington 98070;
telephone number: (206) 553-2804; fax number (206) 553-8509; email
address: [email protected].
As discussed in Section V below, Ecology is evaluating the
Petitioners' petitions under state authority. Information on Ecology's
action may be found at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1907021.html.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The information in this section is organized as follows:
I. Overview Information
II. Background
A. What is are the listed wastes associated with this petition?
B. What is a delisting petition?
C. What factors did EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a
delisting petition?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What waste did the Petitioners petition EPA to delist?
B. How did the Petitioners generate the waste?
C. How did the Petitioners sample and analyze the petitioned
waste?
D. What were the results of EPA's analysis of the Petitioner's
waste?
E. How did the EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
F. What are EPA's proposed findings regarding the petitioned
wastes?
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. How will the Petitioners manage the waste if it is delisted?
B. What are the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the waste?
C. How frequently must the Petitioners test the waste?
D. What data must the Petitioners submit?
E. What happens if the Petitioners fail to meet the conditions
of the exclusion?
F. What must the Petitioners do if the process changes?
V. When would the EPA finalize the proposed delisting exclusion?
VI. How would this action affect states?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
The EPA is proposing to grant three petitions submitted jointly by
Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC (Emerald) and Fire Mountain Farms, Inc
(FMF) (Petitioners), in Lewis County, Washington to exclude (or
``delist'') a one-time combined amount up to 20,100 cubic yards of U019
(benzene) and U220 (toluene) hazardous wastes from the list of federal
hazardous waste set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations CFR
261.33.\1\ These three petitions apply to three separate facilities
owned and operated by FMF, and each manage wastes that are sufficiently
similar that the EPA is electing to propose its decision to grant the
petitions concurrently through this Federal Register notice. The
Petitioners claim that each of the petitioned wastes do 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.
These exclusions apply only to wastes associated with closure of
hazardous waste management units at the three FMF facilities pursuant
to an approved closure plan. The exclusion is effective when the wastes
are removed from the respective hazardous waste management units, or
otherwise generated pursuant to the corresponding approved closure
plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The facility-specific waste volumes are documented in
Section III.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our review described in Section III, we propose to make a
determination that the petitioned wastes are non-hazardous with respect
to listed waste codes that originally applied. As part of our
supporting analysis, we reviewed the description of the process which
generated the wastes and the analytical data submitted by the
Petitioners. We believe that the petitioned wastes do not meet the
criteria for which the waste was originally listed, that they do not
exhibit any hazardous waste characteristic, and that there are no other
factors which might cause the waste to be hazardous. Accordingly, EPA
is proposing to find that the petitioned wastes may be safely managed
as non-listed hazardous wastes. EPA notes that while the burden of
demonstrating that a delisted waste does not also exhibit a hazardous
characteristic remains with the facility, the data provided by the
Petitioners demonstrate that the candidate wastes do not exhibit a
hazardous characteristic. 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, the
petitioned wastes must be disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is
permitted, licensed, or registered by a State to manage industrial
solid waste.
II. Background
A. What are the listed wastes associated with this petition?
The EPA published an amended list of discarded commercial chemical
products, off-specification species, container residues and spill
residues thereof on November 25, 1980 (45 FR 78541), 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 261.33.
We list these wastes as hazardous because: (1) They typically and
frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous
wastes identified in 40 CFR part 261 Subpart C (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 from a
source listed in the regulations as ``hazardous'' is by definition
hazardous, a specific waste from an individual generating facility and
from a source meeting the listing
[[Page 60977]]
description may produce wastes that vary significantly from the wastes
EPA considered in establishing the waste listing.
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 that a
specific waste from a particular generating facility should not be
regulated as hazardous.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Washington State's promulgated regulations at WAC 173-303-
910(3) correspondence to the federal regulation. However, Washington
State has not received final authorization to implement these
regulations in lieu of 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 EPA to decide
whether any factors in addition to those for which the waste was listed
warrant retaining it as a hazardous waste. (See 40 CFR 260.22 and 42
U.S.C. 6921(f).) EPA's basis for originally listing the wastes
associated with this petition may be found at 45 FR 78532.
If a delisting petition is granted, the specific waste(s)
identified in the delisting will be excluded from the associated
lists(s) of hazardous waste in 40 CFR part 261 Subpart D so long as
conditions in the delisting are met. A waste which is so excluded,
however, may still exhibit a characteristic and thus be a hazardous
waste by operation of 40 CFR part 261 Subpart C. EPA notes that while
the burden of demonstrating that a delisted waste does not also exhibit
a hazardous characteristic remains with the facility, the data provided
by the Petitioners demonstrate that the candidate wastes do not exhibit
a hazardous characteristic.
C. What factors did 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) through (4). We evaluated the
petitioned wastes against the listing criteria and factors cited in
Sec. 261.11(a)(2) and (3).
In addition to the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a), 261.11(a)(2) and
(3), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background documents for the listed
wastes, EPA also considered 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 petitions to delist the waste
from the identified FMF facilities in Lewis County, Washington is based
on our evaluation of the wastes 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 the Petitioners petition the EPA to delist?
Emerald manufactures various organic chemicals used as artificial
flavors and fragrances, food preservatives, plasticizers, and
intermediates at their facility in Kalama, Washington. Most of the
chemicals produced are derived from toluene or from the oxidation
products of toluene, including benzoic acid and benzaldehyde.
Additional products are produced as derivatives of benzoic acid and
benzaldehyde. Products are typically purified by continuous or batch
distillation. In conjunction with its manufacturing processes, Emerald
operates an industrial wastewater treatment system, consisting of an
anaerobic digestion process and an aerobic oxidation system, both of
which are biological treatment systems very similar to municipal
wastewater treatment systems. This treatment system produces industrial
wastewater treatment plant biological solids (IWBS). As documented in
the Petitioner's delisting petition, the IWBS designates as U019
(benzene) and U220 (toluene).
FMF operates receiving, storage, treatment, and land application
facilities in Lewis County, Washington for wastewater treatment plant
treatment solids received from municipal, industrial, and private
wastewater treatment plants. FMF is not permitted or otherwise
authorized to manage, treat, or dispose of hazardous or dangerous
wastes.\3\ Emerald contracted with FMF to land apply Emerald's IWBS
beginning in October 1995. FMF mixed Emerald's IWBS with treatment
solids from other facilities and land applied or stored the mixed IWBS/
treatment solids wastes at several FMF facilities. The RCRA rules
require that listed hazardous wastes, when mixed with other materials,
continue to be regulated as listed hazardous wastes (40 CFR 261.3). The
mixed IWBS/treatment solids wastes are currently stored at three FMF
facilities: Burnt Ridge located at 856 Burnt Ridge Road, Onalaska,
Washington; Newaukum Prairie located at 349 State Route 508, Chehalis,
Washington; and Big Hanaford located at 307 Big Hanaford Road,
Centralia, Washington.\4\ Under a separate action (See footnote 4), the
Washington State Department of Ecology is requiring that Emerald and
FMF remove these wastes from the three units according to closure plans
approved pursuant to WAC 173-303-610.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Within Ecology's authorized hazardous waste program,
``hazardous'' refers to those wastes regulated by the federal RCRA
program. ``Dangerous'' refers to additional wastes that Ecology's
regulates as a broader in scope provision of their program.
\4\ The Washington State Department of Ecology has entered into
a litigation settlement (Docket Entry 3) with Fire Mountain Farms
and Emerald-Kalama that, in part, requires closure of the units
managing dangerous waste considered int his proposed delisting rule.
In this context, today's proposed delisting rule is a ``one-time''
delisting that, if finalized, will allow the fixed volume of wastes
to be generated pursuant to closure of these three units as non-
hazardous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Petitioners have requested that up to 4,700 cubic yards at the
Burnt Ridge facility, 10,400 cubic yards at the Newaukum Prairie
facility, and 5,000 cubic yards at the Big Hanaford facility of IWBS/
treatment solids be excluded from the list of hazardous wastes.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The delisting petitions submitted by the Petitioners
requested exclusion of a waste volumes less than those cited in this
proposed rule. Because these wastes will be managed on a one-time
basis as part of closure of the respective waste management units at
the three FMF facilities, the EPA and Ecology have determined that
it is appropriate to propose exclusion of a waste volume double that
in the respective delisting petitions as a safety measure that will
account for any additional wastes that may be generated pursuant to
closure activities such as liners, debris, etc. The EPA notes that
the requested quantity of wastes in the delisting petition itself
was expressed on a mass (ton) basis. The ``Waste Characterization
Plan, Fire Mountain Farms, Mixed Material Storage Units, Lewis
County, Washington'' included in the petition, however, estimates
the quantity of waste on a volumetric basis. The expanded waste
volume in this proposed delisting reflect a doubling of the
volumetric waste volumetric estimate documented in the Waste
Characterization Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 60978]]
B. How did the Petitioners generate the waste?
In a delisting petition for its IWBS wastes separate from today's
proposed exclusions, Emerald documented that its industrial wastewater
treatment system from which IWBS is derived manages wastewaters from
multiple sources within the facility. The first source consists of
contaminated groundwater from an extensive groundwater recovery system
to prevent contaminated water from leaving the plant site. Water pumped
from the North Impact Area (NIA), West Impact Area (WIA), and
Intermediate Sand Recovery Wells (ISRW) contains commercial product
toluene from historical releases and therefore the IWBS carry the
listed hazardous waste code U220 (toluene). Historical data from 2014
through 2017 indicates that an average of 33.1 million gallons per year
with a maximum of 38.6 million gallon per year was treated in the
wastewater treatment unit (WWTU) that generates IWBS. The second source
consists of stormwater that falls on the manufacturing process areas of
the facility, which may become contaminated by spills or releases of
the various raw materials, intermediates, products or byproducts of its
manufacturing operations. The third source consists of process
wastewater from manufacturing processes. These second and third sources
may be impacted by trace amounts of pure product benzene from de
minimus spills that are captured by the treatment system; therefore,
the IWBS from the second and third source categories carry the listed
hazardous waste code U019 (benzene).
Emerald provided the EPA with a detailed process flow diagram
(Docket Entry 1) of the overall wastewater management system that
documents the source of all wastewaters from which the candidate IWBS
are generated and the various management processes that are applied to
the wastewaters. Generally, process wastewater expected to have higher
quantities of organic constituents from process units is routed to
either the anaerobic digesters (ANTs) or to the aerobic digesters
(BIOX), depending upon the types and concentrations of chemicals
present. All of the effluent from ANTs is routed to BIOX for final
treatment. Groundwater and stormwater \6\ with a low chemical oxygen
demand (COD) are routed to the aerobic digesters (BIOX). This process
flow arrangement, including flexibility to re-route wastewaters
depending on their chemical makeup, helps ensure that concentrated free
product from manufacturing process wastes or from spills is not
introduced into the balance of the wastewater treatment system, and
that the concentration of waste constituents entering the treatment
system is maintained in a range that fosters microbial degradation.
Wastewaters from the API separator are then routed to the aerobic
digester system. The use of the API separator for wastewaters expected
to have higher levels of organic constituents helps ensure that
significant excursions in waste composition do not adversely affect
performance of the wastewater treatment system. The effluent of the
ANTS system is then routed to the aerobic digester and sludge
filtration systems. Groundwater and stormwater expected to have lower
COD levels bypass the API separator and are fed directly to the aerobic
digester treatment system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Emerald also provide the EPA with a map of the facility
indicating areas where stormwater is collected from various areas of
the facility. See Docket Entry 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the Burnt Ridge facility, FMF mixed IWBS from Emerald, treatment
solids from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants, and
cow manure water runoff from a barn in a surface impoundment that has
approximate dimensions of 220 feet on each side and 14 feet deep. Once
FMF mixed the IWBS with the other material, the mixed material became
regulated as U019 and U220 listed hazardous wastes as noted earlier.
At the Newaukum Prairie facility, FMF mixed IWBS from Emerald and
treatment solids from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment
plants in a surface impoundment that has approximate dimensions of 220
feet on each side and 12 feet deep. Once FMF mixed the IWBS with the
other material, the mixed material became regulated as U019 and U220
listed hazardous wastes.
At the Big Hanaford facility, FMF mixed IWBS from Emerald and
treatment solids from municipal and private wastewater treatment plants
in a roofed concrete panel storage unit that has approximate dimensions
of 100 feet by 60 feet and 11.5 feet deep. Once FMF mixed the IWBS with
the other material, the mixed material became regulated as U019 and
U220 listed hazardous wastes.
C. How did the Petitioners sample and analyze the petitioned wastes?
FMF conducted an investigation of the wastes at each of the three
storage units in September 2014.\7\ Three composite samples of the
mixed IWBS/treatment solids wastes were collected from each storage
unit. At Burnt Ridge and Newaukum Prairie, each composite sample
consisted of nine grab samples collected from various depths. Each
composite sample collected at Big Hanaford consisted of six grab
samples collected from various depths.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This investigation is documented in the first report in
Appendix C of the three delisting petitions (Docket Entries 7-9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each composite sample was analyzed for the following constituents
or constituent groups: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOCs), total metals, total cyanide, and total
solids. The specific analytes included in the analysis are defined by
the analytical method used for each group.
In addition, two composite samples from the Newaukum Prairie
storage unit and one composite sample each from the Burnt Ridge and Big
Hanaford storage units were analyzed for the following parameters or
constituent groups: Pesticides; polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
Aroclors; dioxins and furans, reported as 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzodioxin toxicity equivalence quotient (2,3,7,8-TCDD
TEQ); ammonia; Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN); pH, nitrite; and nitrate
+ nitrite (the concentration of nitrate was calculated by the
analytical laboratory). Fourteen grab samples from the Newaukum Prairie
storage unit and seven grab samples each from the Burnt Ridge and Big
Hanaford storage units were analyzed for total fecal coliform.
Emerald conducted additional sampling of the mixed IWBS/treatment
solids wastes at each of the three storage units in August and October
2017.\8\ Emerald performed the additional sampling based on the
preliminary delisting levels and the September 2014 investigation.
Samples from the storage units at Burnt Ridge, Newaukum Prairie, and
Big Hanaford were analyzed for selected volatile organic compounds
(acetone, benzene, methanol, and toluene), total solids, and pH.
Samples from Big Hanaford were analyzed for total acrylonitrile;
cobalt; 4-methylphenol; 2,4-dinitrotoluene; 2,6-dinitrotoluene; and
naphthalene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Results of these sampling activities are documented in the
third report in Appendix C of the three delisting petitions (Docket
Entries 7-9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 60979]]
D. What were the results of EPA's analysis of the Petitioner's waste?
The first step in the EPA's analysis of the petitioned wastes was
to establish a list of potential constituents of concern (COCs) to
guide further analysis of the waste and to establish initial delisting
exclusion criteria. The EPA applied four criteria for identifying
potential constituents of concern: (1) Whether the constituent is used
as an input to, or created as an intermediate, byproduct or finished
product from Emerald's production processes; (2) whether the IWBS
designates as hazardous for a particular constituent; (3) the expected
frequency of occurrence in the IWBS; and (4) the toxicity of the
constituent of concern. The EPA also considered results of the 2014
waste characterization study in Appendix C of the three petitions, as
well as any additional constituents that may be typically found in
municipal wastewater treatment biosolids.
The EPA first considered organic COCs. Based on the hazardous waste
codes associated with wastewater that ultimately results in generation
of IWBS (D018, U019, U220, U154 and U001), the EPA determined that
benzene, toluene, methanol and acetaldehyde are COCs.\9\ The EPA notes
that benzene is generally regarded as difficult to treat and is an
excellent indicator of overall performance of the WWTU processes, and
the ability of the WWTU to effectively treat other organic constituents
other than benzene. Based on principal products of Emerald's processes,
the EPA determined that additional organic constituents including
benzaldehyde, benzoic acid, formic acid, benzyl alcohol, and phenol
should be retained as COCs. While at least some of these constituents
are associated with products for human consumption or exposure, they
have a level of toxicity that warrants retention as COCs for purposes
of evaluating the candidate waste stream. Although several additional
organic constituents are associated with Emerald's production
processes, they are associated with products for human consumption or
exposure, such as food preservatives and vitamins, fragrances and
perfumes, and sunscreens, and do not have a degree of toxicity that
warrants retention as COCs (Docket Entry 17). In addition, most if not
all these additional organic constituents are highly amenable to
biological treatment in the WWTS and are not expected to be present in
the IWBS at levels anywhere near health-based levels that would be of
concern in the delisting process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ As noted in the delisting petition, IWBS designate only for
U019 (benzene) and U220 (toluene) because due to an exception to
RCRA's derived from rule, certain codes applicable to the wastewater
do not carry through to the IWBS. However, as part of its evaluation
of the IWBS waste stream and identification of COCs, the EPA also
considered hazardous waste codes applicable to the wastewaters
managed by the WWTU generating IWBS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerald's production process uses a range of catalysts, including
several metallic catalysts that include cobalt, copper and nickel. On
this basis, cobalt, copper and nickel are identified as constituents of
concern. Although these three metals are not hazardous constituents,
they are retained as ``other factors'' that may cause the waste to be
retained as hazardous. Other metallic constituents are reported to have
been detected in the IWBS waste stream that do not have a clear source
related to Emerald's organic manufacturing process. These constituents
include barium and zinc. Barium is a hazardous constituent and is
present at levels in the IWBS so barium is retained as an ``other
factor'' that may cause the waste to be retained as hazardous. Zinc is
a common contaminant in industrial wastewater and is found in the IWBS
at concentrations as high as 1,350 ppm dry weight, so zinc is retained
as a constituent as an ``other factor'' that may cause the waste to be
retained as hazardous.
In Emerald's production process, cobalt is used as a catalyst in
both its metallic form (sponge cobalt) and as cobalt acetate. Although
cobalt acetate poses environmental and human health risks, the acetate
functional group is expected to be readily degraded in the WWTS,
leaving metallic cobalt in the IWBS. Further, cobalt acetate is soluble
in water, so that any remaining cobalt acetate that is not degraded to
metallic cobalt in the WWTS is likely to partition into the effluent
wastewater managed separately from the IWBS. Thus, all forms of cobalt
are considered to be metallic for purposes of the delisting evaluation
of Emerald's IWBS.
Emerald's IWBS only constitute a small percentage (between 5% and
8%) of the total mixed IWBS/treatment solids wastes at each of the
three storage units.
With respect to the biosolids component of the petitioned waste,
the 2014 waste characterization report in Appendix C of the delisting
petitions considered a very broad range of potential constituents of
concern. The EPA first compared these characterization data reports to
preliminary delisting levels (See the second report in Appendix C of
the delisting petitions) calculated using the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS) model.\10\ Any detected constituents at concentrations
less than the preliminary delisting levels were removed from further
consideration.\11\ The remaining detected constituents exceeding a
preliminary delisting level were retained for further evaluation in the
2017 waste characterization plan, also included in the second report in
Appendix C of the delisting petitions. Results from this latter
characterization work were then used as input to the DRAS modelling
program discussed in the following section. After consideration of
constituents typically found in biosolids (for example, as documented
in the U.S. EPA National Sewage Sludge Survey available at https://www.epa.gov/biosolids/sewage-sludge-surveys), the EPA determined that
no additional constituents of concern should be added for consideration
in the delisting process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Preliminary delisting levels were obtained for all DRAS
constituents on a unit-specific basis considering the expected waste
volume associated with each unit to be closed.
\11\ The specific decision criteria that considered total
concentrations, bounding leachability, and laboratory analysis
detection limits are documented in the second report in Appendix C
of the delisting petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final list of constituents of concern evaluated in the
delisting process are documented in Tables 2-4 below.
E. How did the EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
For this delisting determination, we evaluated the risk that the
waste would be disposed of as a non-hazardous waste in a RCRA Subtitle
D landfill and we considered transport of waste constituents through
ground water, surface water and air. We evaluated the Petitioner's
analysis of petitioned waste using the DRAS software 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/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
through ingestion of contaminated groundwater,
[[Page 60980]]
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 available at https://www.epa.gov/hw/hazardous-waste-delisting-risk-assessment-software-dras.
The EPA used the following inputs to its DRAS analysis of the
Petitioner's wastes, as summarized in Table 2.
Table 1--Emerald and FMF Delisting DRAS Input
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRAS Input parameter Value Assumptions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management Unit Type.. Landfill \12\....... Waste planned for
disposal in a
municipal solid
waste landfill.
Waste Volume--one-year batch 4,700 cubic yards Conservative
for Burnt Ridge; estimation value
10,400 cubic yards based on facility-
for Newaukum specific
Prairie; 5,000 information.
cubic yards for Big
Hanaford.
Waste Management Unit Active One Year Batch...... N/A--DRAS does not
Life. allow a year input
for the One Year
Batch.
Target risk--carcinogenic 1 x 10-5............ Based on risk ranges
risk 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 1 x 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.
The EPA used the maximum estimated waste volumes 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. Tables 2, 3, and 4 document the constituent-
specific maximum total and TCLP sample results used as input to the
DRAS analysis, and the resulting modeling results from DRAS for the
Burnt Ridge, Newaukum Prairie, and Big Hanaford storage units,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Although two of the petitioned waste streams originate in a
surface impoundment, the wastes being delisted will be removed from
the surface impoundments through an approved closure process. The
removed wastes will be managed in accordance with the closure plan
to allow disposal in a solid waste landfill. Therefore, the waste
management unit used for modelling waste performance using DRAS is
``Landfill'' for all three units.
Table 2--Sampling Data and DRAS Modeling Results for Burnt Ridge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum observed Modeling results
concentration \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\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barium.............................. N/A N/A 21,100,000 Air Particulate 1,090 Maximum Contaminant
Inhalation. Level.
Cobalt.............................. 48 0.108 94,400 Air Particulate 6.28 Groundwater Ingestion.
Inhalation.
Copper.............................. 417 N/A 18,200,000 Fish Ingestion........ 716 Maximum Contaminant
Level.
Nickel.............................. 45 N/A 3,540,000 Air Particulate 408 Groundwater Ingestion.
Inhalation.
Zinc................................ 969 N/A 47,100,000 Fish Ingestion........ 6,170 Groundwater Ingestion.
Benzaldehyde........................ N/A N/A 2,320,000,000 Soil Ingestion........ 1,760 Groundwater Ingestion.
Benzene............................. 0.00101 N/A 1,600,000 Air Volatile 2.35 Maximum Contaminant
Inhalation. Level.
Benzoic Acid........................ N/A N/A 83,100,000,000 Fish Ingestion........ 70,400 Groundwater Ingestion.
Formic Acid......................... N/A N/A 8,080,000 Air Volatile 1,130 Groundwater
Inhalation. Inhalation.
Benzyl alcohol...................... N/A N/A 11,600,000,000 Soil Ingestion........ 8,800 Groundwater Ingestion.
Methanol............................ <0.01 U N/A 11,600,000,000 Soil Ingestion........ 8,800 Groundwater Ingestion.
Phenol.............................. <0.310 U N/A 6,950,000,000 Soil Ingestion........ 5,280 Groundwater Ingestion.
Toluene............................. 0.035 N/A 369,000,000 Fish Ingestion........ 460 Maximum Contaminant
Level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maximum concentration documented in the Petitioner's Burnt Ridge delisting petition, Tables B-1, B-3, and B-4.
\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.
[[Page 60981]]
Table 3--Sampling Data and DRAS Modeling Results for Newaukum Prairie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum observed Modeling results
concentration \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\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barium.............................. N/A N/A 11,000,000 Air Particulate 498 Maximum Contaminant
Inhalation. Level.
Cobalt.............................. 89 0.184 49,100 Air Particulate 2.92 Groundwater Ingestion.
Inhalation.
Copper.............................. 503 N/A 9,290,000 Fish Ingestion........ 332 Maximum Contaminant
Level.
Nickel.............................. 30 N/A 1,840,000 Air Particulate 184 Groundwater Ingestion.
Inhalation.
Zinc................................ 1,060 N/A 24,000,000 Fish Ingestion........ 2,820 Groundwater Ingestion.
Benzaldehyde........................ N/A N/A 1,210,000,000 Soil Ingestion........ 809 Groundwater Ingestion.
Benzene............................. <0.0039 U N/A 955,000 Air Volatile 1.08 Maximum Contaminant
Inhalation. Level.
Benzoic Acid........................ N/A N/A 42,500,000,000 Fish Ingestion........ 32,400 Groundwater Ingestion.
Formic Acid......................... N/A N/A 4,830,000 Air Volatile 519 Groundwater
Inhalation. Inhalation.
Benzyl alcohol...................... N/A N/A 6,060,000,000 Soil Ingestion........ 4,040 Groundwater Ingestion.
Methanol............................ <0.01 U N/A 6,060,000,000 Soil Ingestion........ 4,040 Groundwater Ingestion.
Phenol.............................. 0.63 N/A 3,640,000,000 Soil Ingestion........ 2,430 Groundwater Ingestion.
Toluene............................. 150 N/A 189,000,000 Fish Ingestion........ 211 Maximum Contaminant
Level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maximum concentration documented in the Petitioner's Newaukum Prairie delisting petition, Tables B-1, B-3, and B-4.
\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.
Table 4--Sampling Data and DRAS Modeling Results for Big Hanaford
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum observed Modeling results
concentration \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\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barium.............................. N/A N/A 20,100,000 Air Particulate 1,030 Maximum Contaminant
Inhalation. Level.
Cobalt.............................. 165 1.10 89,900 Air Particulate 5.92 Groundwater Ingestion.
Inhalation.
Copper.............................. 521 N/A 17,300,000 Fish Ingestion........ 674 Maximum Contaminant
Level.
Nickel.............................. 42 N/A 3,370,000 Air Particulate 384 Groundwater Ingestion.
Inhalation.
Zinc................................ 1,100 N/A 44,700,000 Fish Ingestion........ 5,800 Groundwater Ingestion.
Benzaldehyde........................ N/A N/A 2,210,000,000 Soil Ingestion........ 1,660 Groundwater Ingestion.
Benzene............................. 0.00115 N/A 1,530,000 Air Volatile 2.21 Maximum Contaminant
Inhalation. Level.
Benzoic Acid........................ N/A N/A 78,900,000,000 Fish Ingestion........ 66,300 Groundwater Ingestion.
Formic Acid......................... N/A N/A 7,760,000 Air Volatile 1,060 Groundwater
Inhalation. Inhalation.
Benzyl alcohol...................... N/A N/A 11,000,000,000 Soil Ingestion........ 8,290 Groundwater Ingestion.
Methanol............................ <0.01 U N/A 11,000,000,000 Soil Ingestion........ 8,290 Groundwater Ingestion.
Phenol.............................. 23 N/A 6,620,000,000 Soil Ingestion........ 4,970 Groundwater Ingestion.
Toluene............................. 120 N/A 350,000,000 Fish Ingestion........ 433 Maximum Contaminant
Level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maximum concentration documented in the Petitioner's Big Hanaford delisting petition, Tables B-1 and B-3.
\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.
F. What are EPA's proposed findings regarding the petitioned wastes?
The maximum reported concentrations of the hazardous constituents
found in these wastes are presented in the tables above. The tables
also present the maximum allowable concentrations, above which the
waste is not excluded from the applicable hazardous waste listings.
We therefore propose to conclude that the Petitioner's mixed IWBS/
treatment solids wastes are 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 the Petitioners in their
petitions support the EPA's proposed conclusion that the petitioned
waste does not exhibit any hazardous characteristic for which the waste
is listed, and that there are no other factors that would warrant
retaining the waste as hazardous. On this basis, we propose to grant
the Petitioner's petitions to delist these wastes. If this exclusion is
finalized, and subject to the conditions of the final delisting, the
Petitioners must dispose of these wastes in a Subtitle D landfill
permitted or licensed by a state and will remain obligated to verify
that the wastes continue to meet the allowable concentrations set forth
here. The Petitioners must also to demonstrate that the wastes do not
exhibit any hazardous characteristics pursuant to 40 CFR part 261
Subpart C. The Petitioners may make this demonstration based on the
existing characterization data provided in the delisting petition. As
noted in Section II.B, the data provided by the Petitioners demonstrate
that the candidate wastes do not exhibit a hazardous characteristic.
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. How will the Petitioners manage the waste if it is delisted?
If the petitioned wastes are delisted as proposed, the Petitioners
must dispose of them in a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted,
licensed, or registered by a state to manage industrial waste.
[[Page 60982]]
B. What are the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the waste?
Concentrations of the following constituents measured in the wastes
located at FMF's Burnt Ridge, Newaukum Prairie, and Big Hanaford
facilities, respectively, must not exceed the concentrations in Table
5.
Table 5--Verification Constituents and Compliance Concentrations DRAS Model Output
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burnt Ridge Newaukum Prarie Big Hanaford
Constituent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/l) Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/l) Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/l)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barium.................................................. N/A 1,090 N/A 498 N/A 1,030
Cobalt.................................................. 94,400 6.28 49,100 2.92 89,900 5.92
Copper.................................................. N/A 716 N/A 332 N/A 674
Nickel.................................................. N/A 408 N/A 184 N/A 384
Zinc.................................................... N/A 6,170 N/A 2,820 N/A 5,800
Benzaldehyde............................................ N/A 1,760 N/A 809 N/A 1,660
Benzene................................................. N/A 2.35 N/A 1.08 N/A 2.21
Benzoic Acid............................................ N/A 70,400 N/A 32,400 N/A 66,300
Formic Acid............................................. N/A 1,130 N/A 519 N/A 1,060
Benzyl alcohol.......................................... N/A 8,800 N/A 4,040 N/A 8,290
Methanol................................................ N/A 8,800 N/A 4,040 N/A 8,290
Phenol.................................................. N/A 5,280 N/A 2,430 N/A 4,970
Toluene................................................. N/A 460 N/A 211 N/A 433
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 proposing to require the
Petitioners to perform sampling and analysis for that constituent and
sampling type (total or TCLP). In these instances, the corresponding
entry in Table 5 above is ``N/A.''
C. How frequently must the Petitioners test the waste?
The Petitioner's delisting petitions did not provide complete
sampling data for some constituents that EPA has retained as
constituents of concern. More specifically, characterization data for
barium, benzaldehyde, benzoic acid, formic acid, and benzyl alcohol,
which are retained as verification constituents, do not have any
existing characterization data. Therefore, the candidate wastes are
excluded only if the Petitioners analyze three representative composite
samples of the mixed IWBS/treatment solids wastes from each FMF
facility for these constituents prior to the start of closure
activities to demonstrate that the constituents of concern in the
petitioned waste do not exceed the concentrations of concern in Section
IV.C above. The Petitioners need only sample an extract of the wastes
from EPA SW-846 Method 1311 for purposes of comparison to the TCLP
standard in Table 5 and Condition 1 of the proposed amendments to 40
CFR part 261. If results of any composite sample do not reflect
compliance with delisting exclusion limits, the EPA may require the
Petitioners to conduct additional verification sampling to better
define the volume of waste with waste constituent concentrations
exceeding the delisting exclusion limits. The EPA believes that this
sampling rate will provide an appropriate level of certainty for
determining whether or not all delisted waste satisfy the delisting
criteria presented in Table 5 above. The Petitioners must use methods
with appropriate analytical sensitivity quality control procedures, as
documented in a written quality assurance project plan. EPA publication
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.
D. What data must the Petitioners submit?
The Petitioners must submit the data obtained through verification
testing to U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Land, Chemicals and
Redevelopment, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 155, M/S 15-H04, Seattle,
Washington 98101 within 10 days after receiving the final results from
the laboratory. The Petitioners 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). Provided that the data
demonstrate compliance with the verification standards in Condition 1
of the delisting rule, no further action is required of the
Petitioners.
E. What happens if the Petitioners fail to meet the conditions of the
exclusion?
If the Petitioners violate the terms and conditions established in
the exclusion, the Agency may start procedures to withdraw the
exclusion. Additionally, the terms of the exclusion provide that
``[a]ny waste volume for which representative composite sampling does
not reflect full compliance with the exclusion criteria in Condition 1
must continue to be managed as hazardous.''
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 5, the Petitioners must notify the Agency
within 10 days, or such later date as the EPA may agree to in writing,
after receiving the final verification testing results from the
laboratory or of first possessing or being made aware of other relevant
data. The EPA may
[[Page 60983]]
require the Petitioners to conduct additional verification sampling to
better define the particular volume of wastes within the affected unit
that does not fully satisfy delisting criteria. For any volume of
wastes for which the corresponding representative sample(s) do not
reflect full compliance with delisting exclusion levels, the exclusion
by its terms does not apply, and the waste must be managed as
hazardous.
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.
F. What must the Petitioners do if the process changes?
Since the wastes that are the subject of this proposed de-listing
already exist and are not expected to change as part of closure process
for each of the units where the wastes are currently stored, there are
no proposed requirements addressing process changes.
V. 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. Upon receipt and consideration of all comments,
EPA will publish its final determination as a final rule. 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.
VI. 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.
RCRA allows states to impose more stringent regulatory requirements
than RCRA'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
states. If the Petitioners manage the wastes in any state with
delisting authorization, the Petitioners 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 U019
and U220 wastes (See 51 Federal Register 3782), 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, the
Petitioners must seek de-listing approval from Washington State in
addition to this proposed delisting for this delisting to be effective
as a matter of state law in Washington. In the absence of approval from
Washington, the wastes proposed for de-listing by EPA in this action
will continue to be regulated as ``dangerous waste'' under state law.
VII. 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. 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
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.).
E. 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.
F. 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.
G. 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.
H. 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.
[[Page 60984]]
I. 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.
J. 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).
K. 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.
L. 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: October 11, 2019.
Timothy B. Hamlin,
Director, Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division.
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 ``Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC and Fire Mountain
Farms, Inc'' 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC and Fire Lewis County, Mixtures of hazardous wastewater treatment
Mountain Farms, Inc. Washington. sludges, U019 (benzene) and U220 (toluene) and
other non-hazardous solid wastes to be removed
by Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC and Fire
Mountain Farms, Inc (Petitioners) pursuant to
closure plans approved by the Washington State
Department of Ecology and currently in storage
in Fire Mountain Farm's Burnt Ridge, Newaukum
Prarie and Big Hanford facilities in Lewis
County, Washington. The maximum amount of
wastes that may be managed pursuant to this
exclusion is 4,700 cubic yards at the Burnt
Ridge facility, 10,400 cubic yards at the
Newaukum Prairie facility, and 5,000 cubic
yards at the Big Hanaford facility, present at
each facility as of the effective date of this
exclusion, subject to the conditions below.
Wastes managed under this exclusion must be
disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is
licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized by
a state to accept the delisted mixed material.
The exclusion becomes effective as of [[the
date of final publication].].
1. Delisting Levels: The constituent
concentrations in a representative sample of
the waste must not exceed the following levels.
For each constituent, the delisting
verification level is provided for Burnt Ridge,
Newaukum Prarie and Big Hanaford, respectively.
Total concentrations (mg/kg): Cobalt--94,400,
49,100, 89,900; TCLP Concentrations (mg/l in
the waste extract): Barium--1,090, 498, 1,030;
Cobalt--6.28, 2.92, 5.92; Copper--716, 332,
674; Nickel--408, 184, 384; Zinc--6,170, 2,820,
5,800; Benzaldehyde--1,760, 809, 1,660;
Benzene--2.35, 1.08, 2.21; Benzoic Acid--
70,400, 32,400, 66,300; Formic Acid--1,130,
519, 1,060; Benzyl Alcohol--8,800, 4,040,
8,290; Methanol--8,800, 4,040, 8,290; Phenol--
5,280, 2,430, 4,970; Toluene--460, 211, 433.
[[Page 60985]]
2. Verification Testing: To verify that the
waste does not exceed the delisting
concentrations specified in Condition 1, the
Petitioners must collect and analyze an extract
using EPA SW-846 Method 1311 (TCLP extraction)
from three representative composite samples for
barium, benzaldehyde, benzoic acid, formic
acid, and benzyl alcohol of the mixed IWBS/
treatment solids wastes from each FMF facility
prior to the start of closure activities to
demonstrate that the constituents of concern in
the petitioned waste do not exceed the
concentrations of concern in Condition 1. If
results from analysis of any composite sample
do not reflect compliance with delisting
exclusion limits, the EPA may require the
Petitioners to conduct additional verification
sampling to better define the volume of waste
with waste constituent concentrations exceeding
the delisting exclusion limits. The Petitioners
must conduct all verification sampling
according to a written sampling plan and
associated quality assurance project plan which
is approved in advance by the EPA that ensures
analytical data are suitable for their intended
use. Sampling data must be submitted to the EPA
no later than 10 days after receiving the final
results from the laboratory, or such later date
as the EPA may agree to in writing. Any waste
volume for which representative composite
sampling does not reflect full compliance with
the exclusion criteria in Condition 1 must
continue to be managed as hazardous. The
Petitioners must also submit to EPA a
certification that all wastes satisfying the
delisting concentrations in Condition 1 have
been disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which
is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized
by a state to accept the delisted mixed
material of wastewater treatment sludge, and
the quantity of waste disposed from each
facility. This submission must be submitted to
EPA within 60 days of completion of closure
according to the approved closure plan.
3. Data Submittals: The Petitioners must submit
the data obtained through verification testing
and as required by other conditions of this
rule, to the Director, Land, Chemical, &
Redevelopment Division, U.S. EPA Region 10,
1200 6th Avenue Suite 155, M/S 15-H04, Seattle,
Washington, 98070 or his or her equivalent.
Electronic submission via electronic mail,
physical electronic media (e.g., USB flash
drive), or an electronic file transfer system
is acceptable. The Petitioners must compile,
summarize, and maintain for a minimum of five
years, records of analytical data and waste
disposal required by this rule. The Petitioners
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 the Petitioners fail
to submit the required data within the
specified time or maintain the required records
for the specified time, the EPA may, at its
discretion, consider such failure a sufficient
basis to reopen the exclusion as described in
Condition 4.
4. Reopener Language: (A) If, any time after
disposal of the delisted waste, the Petitioners
possess or are otherwise made aware of any
data, including but not limited to leachate
data or groundwater monitoring data from the
final land disposal facility, relevant to the
delisted waste indicating that any constituent
is at a higher than the specified delisting
concentration, then the Petitioners must report
such data, in writing, to the Director, Land,
Chemical, & Redevelopment Division, EPA Region
10 at the address above, or his or her
equivalent, within 10 days of first possessing
or being made aware of those data.
(B) Based on the information described in
Condition 4(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 the Petitioners 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 the
Petitioners with an opportunity to present
information as to why the proposed Agency
action is not necessary or to suggest an
alternative action. The Petitioners shall have
30 days from the date of the EPA's notice to
present the information.
(D) If after 30 days the Petitioners present 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. 2019-23830 Filed 11-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
