Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, 10911-10918 [2021-02939]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules
11, 2021, the EPA proposed a rule titled
‘‘National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Flexible
Foam Fabrication Operations Residual
Risk and Technology Review and
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production
and Fabrication Area Source
Technology Review.’’ The EPA is
extending the comment period on this
proposed rule that currently closes on
February 25, 2021. The comment period
will remain open until March 29, 2021,
to allow additional time for stakeholders
to review and comment on the proposal.
On January 14, 2021, the EPA proposed
a rule titled ‘‘National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Refractory Products Manufacturing
Residual Risk and Technology Review,’’
and a rule titled ‘‘National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Carbon Black Production Residual Risk
and Technology Review,’’ and on
January 15, 2021, the EPA proposed a
rule titled ‘‘National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing
Residual Risk and Technology Review.’’
The EPA is extending the comment
periods on these proposed rules that
currently closes on March 1, 2021. The
comment periods will remain open until
March 31, 2021, to allow additional
time for stakeholders to review and
comment on the proposals.
To allow for additional time for
stakeholders to provide comments, the
EPA has decided to extend the public
comment periods as indicated in the
DATES section of this document.
Dated: February 16, 2021.
Panagiotis Tsirigotis,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards.
[FR Doc. 2021–03374 Filed 2–19–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R06–RCRA–2020–0379; FRL–10017–
28—Region 6]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed amendment.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to modify an
exclusion from the lists of hazardous
waste previously granted to American
Chrome and Chemical (Petitioner), in
Corpus Christi, Texas. This action
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Feb 22, 2021
Jkt 253001
responds to a petition for amendment to
exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) up to 1,450 cubic
yards per year of K006 chromic oxide
solids from the list of federal hazardous
wastes when disposed of in an on-site
surface impoundment in lieu of disposal
in a Subtitle D Landfill. The Agency is
proposing to grant the petition based on
an evaluation of waste-specific
information provided by the petitioner.
DATES: Comments on this proposed
amendment must be received by March
25, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: shah.harry@epa.gov.
Instructions: EPA must receive your
comments by March 25, 2021. Direct
your comments to Docket ID Number
EPA–R06–RCRA–2020–0379. 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 https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov, or email. The
Federal regulations.gov website is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means 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 EPA without going through
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, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment with any CD you submit. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, 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.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in
the index, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10911
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy.
You can view and copy the delisting
petition and associated publicly
available docket materials either
through www.regulations.gov at: EPA,
Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500,
Dallas, Texas 75270. The EPA facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays and facility closures
due to COVID–19. We recommend that
you telephone Harry Shah, at (214) 665–
6457, before visiting the Region 6 office.
Interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an
appointment with the office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Harry Shah, (214) 665–6457,
shah.harry@epa.gov. Out of an
abundance of caution for members of
the public and our staff, the EPA Region
6 office will be closed to the public to
reduce the risk of transmitting COVID–
19. We encourage the public to submit
comments via https://
www.regulations.gov, as there will be a
delay in processing mail and no courier
or hand deliveries will be accepted.
Please call or email the contact listed
above if you need alternative access to
material indexed but not provided in
the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Overview Information
II. Background
A. What laws and regulations give EPA the
authority to delist waste?
B. What is currently delisted at the
Petitioner’s Corpus Christi, TX facility?
C. What does Petitioner request in its
petition for amendment?
III. Disposition of the Petition Amendment
A. What information did the Petitioner
submit to support its petition for
amendment?
B. What factors did EPA consider in
deciding whether to grant a delisting
petition?
C. How did EPA evaluate the risk of
delisting this waste?
D. What did EPA conclude?
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. How will the Petitioner 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 Petitioner test
the waste?
D. What data must the Petitioner submit?
E. What happens if the Petitioner fails to
meet the conditions of the exclusion?
F. What must the Petitioner do if the
process changes?
V. When would the EPA finalize the
proposed delisting amendment?
VI. How would this action affect the States?
E:\FR\FM\23FEP1.SGM
23FEP1
10912
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
The EPA is proposing to grant an
amendment to the petition submitted by
American Chrome and Chemical
(Petitioner), in Corpus Christi, Texas to
exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) up to 1,450 cubic
yards per year of K006 chromic oxide
solids from the list of federal hazardous
waste set forth in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations CFR 261.32. The Petitioner
claims that the petitioned waste 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. The
original delisting petition was submitted
to EPA in April 17, 2002 and made final
on September 21, 2004. Full facility
descriptions and information are
provided in the proposed rulemaking
(68 FR 64834, November 17, 2003).
Based on our review described in
Section III, we propose to approve the
amendment, and allow the delisted
waste to be disposed in the on-site
surface impoundment in addition to an
off-site Subtitle D landfill.
II. Background
A. What laws and regulations give EPA
the authority to delist waste?
EPA published amended lists of
hazardous wastes from non-specific and
specific sources on January 16, 1981, as
part of its final and interim final
regulations implementing Section 3001
of RCRA. These lists have been
amended several times and are found at
40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32.
We list these wastes as hazardous
because: (1) They typically and
frequently exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous wastes
identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR part
261 (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, and toxicity), or (2) they meet
the criteria for listing contained in 40
CFR 261.11(a)(2) or (3).
Individual waste streams may vary,
however, depending on raw materials,
industrial processes, and other factors.
Thus, while a waste that is described in
these regulations generally is hazardous,
a specific waste from an individual
facility meeting the listing description
may not be.
For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and
260.22 provide an exclusion procedure
which allows a person to demonstrate
that a specific listed waste from a
particular generating facility should not
be regulated as a hazardous waste, and
should, therefore, be delisted.
According to 40 CFR 260.22(a)(1), in
order to have these wastes excluded a
petitioner must first show that wastes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Feb 22, 2021
Jkt 253001
generated at its facility do not meet any
of the criteria for which the wastes were
listed. The criteria which we use to list
wastes are found in 40 CFR 261.11. An
explanation of how these criteria apply
to a particular waste is contained in the
background document for that listed
waste.
In addition to the criteria that we
considered when we originally listed
the waste, we are also required by the
provisions of 40 CFR 260.22(a)(2) to
consider any other factors (including
additional constituents), if there is a
reasonable basis to believe that these
factors could cause the waste to be
hazardous.
In a delisting petition, the petitioner
must demonstrate that the waste does
not exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics defined in Subpart C of
40 CFR part 261 (i.e., ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity), and
must present sufficient information for
EPA to determine whether the waste
contains any other constituents at
hazardous levels
A generator remains obligated under
RCRA to confirm that its waste remains
non-hazardous based on the hazardous
waste characteristics defined in Subpart
C of 40 CFR part 261 even if EPA has
delisted its waste.
We also define residues from the
treatment, storage, or disposal of listed
hazardous wastes and mixtures
containing listed hazardous wastes as
hazardous wastes. (See 40 CFR
261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i), referred to as
the ‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derived-from’’ rules,
respectively.) These wastes are also
eligible for exclusion but remain
hazardous wastes until delisted.
B. What is currently delisted at the
Petitioner’s Corpus Christi, TX facility?
On April 17, 2002, American Chrome
and Chemical petitioned the EPA to
exclude from the list of hazardous waste
contained in Sec. 261.32, the dewatered
sludge generated from its facility located
in Corpus Christi, Texas. The waste, the
EPA Hazardous Waste No. K006, falls
under the classification of listed waste
because of the ‘‘derived-from’’ rule in
Sec. 261.3.
Specifically, in its petition, the
Petitioner requested that the EPA grant
an exclusion for 1,450 cubic yards per
year of dewatered sludge resulting from
its process of manufacturing chromic
oxide. The resulting waste is listed, in
accordance with the ‘‘derived-from’’
rule.
The Petitioner’s wastewater sludge
contains approximately 11% solids. The
petitioned waste is only the dewatered
portion of the sludge, not the entire
sludge (solids and wastewater) that is
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
generated from the current wastewater
treatment process. Currently, the
Petitioner discharges the wastewater
through Outfall 201, into an on-site
storage tank. The discharge is permitted
by Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ) through a Texas
Pollution Discharges Elimination
System (TPDES) Permit No. 003490
(EPA NPDES Permit No. TX0004685).
In support of its petition, the
Petitioner submitted sufficient
information to EPA to allow us to
determine that the waste was not
hazardous based upon the criteria for
which it was listed and that no other
hazardous constituents were present in
the waste at levels of regulatory
concern.
A full description of these wastes and
the Agency’s evaluation of the 2002
petition are contained in the Proposed
Rule and Request for Comments
published in the Federal Register on
November 17, 2003 (68 FR 64834).
After evaluating public comment on
the Proposed Rule, we published a final
decision in the Federal Register on
September 21, 2004, (69 FR 56357) to
exclude the Petitioner’s dewatered
chromic oxide sludge derived from the
treatment of EPA Hazardous Waste No.
K006 from the list of hazardous wastes
found in 40 CFR 261.31.
EPA’s final decision in 2004 was
conditioned on the disposal of the
material in an off-site Subtitle C landfill
at an annual waste volume generation of
1,450 cubic yards of K006 dewatered
sludge. Any additional waste volume in
excess of this limit generated by
Petitioner in a calendar year was to have
been managed as hazardous waste. The
waste could not be managed in any
other waste unit.
C. What does Petitioner request in its
petition for amendment?
In an effort to reduce disposal costs
and the administrative burdens of waste
tracking, notification, and recording
requirements, Petitioner petitioned EPA
on December 3, 2019 for an amendment
to its September 21, 2004 final
exclusion. In its petition, Petitioner
requested to add the disposal scenario
of surface impoundment as a
management option for the chromic
oxide wastes. The volume of waste is set
at a maximum annual generation of
1,450 cubic yards.
III. Disposition of Petition Amendment
A. What information did the Petitioner
submit to support its petition for
amendment?
The exclusion which we granted to
the Petitioner on September 21, 2004, is
E:\FR\FM\23FEP1.SGM
23FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules
a conditional exclusion. No more than
1,450 cubic yards of waste per year can
be disposed of in an off-site Subtitle D
Landfill. Disposal in the on-site Surface
Impoundment #3 (Texas Notice of
Registration Waste Unit 22) was not
approved.
In order to support its Petition for
Amendment, the Petitioner submitted
four new samples of the waste material
and the disposal scenario of the surface
impoundment was modeled using the
Delisting Risk Assessment Software.
The worst-case scenario of the
constituents’ concentrations for the
10913
K006 sludge were used as input in the
model to determine if it would meet the
hazardous waste criteria for which it
was listed. The maximum total and
leachate concentrations for the
inorganic constituents which were
found in the analytical data provided by
Petitioner are presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1—MAXIMUM TOTAL AND TCLP CONCENTRATIONS
Maximum total
concentration
(mg/kg)
Chemical name
Arsenic .....................................................................................................................................................................
Barium ......................................................................................................................................................................
Chromium ................................................................................................................................................................
Thallium ...................................................................................................................................................................
Zinc ..........................................................................................................................................................................
B. 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
section 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
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
amendment to the 2004 petition to
delist the waste from Petitioner’s facility
in Corpus Christi, Texas 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Feb 22, 2021
Jkt 253001
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.
C. 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 surface impoundment. We
considered transport of waste
constituents through groundwater,
surface water and air. We evaluated
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,
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
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9.54
20.8
350,836
<6.72
136
Maximum
TCLP
concentration
(mg/l)
<0.005
0.034
0.563
<0.05
0.020
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/hazardouswaste-delisting-risk-assessmentsoftware-dras.
D. What did EPA conclude?
The Petitioner does not believe that
the petitioned waste meets the criteria
of K006 for which the EPA listed it. The
Petitioner also believes no additional
constituents or factors could cause the
waste to be hazardous. The Petitioner
also believes that disposal in the on-site
surface impoundment will not adversely
impact human health and the
environment. The EPA’s review of this
petition included consideration of the
original listing criteria, and the
additional factors required by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See
section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)
through (4) (hereinafter all sectional
references are to 40 CFR unless
otherwise indicated). In making the
initial delisting determination, the EPA
evaluated the petitioned waste against
the listing criteria and factors cited in
§ 261.11(a)(2) and (3). Based on this
review, the EPA agrees with the
Petitioner that the petitioned waste is
nonhazardous with respect to the
original listing criteria. (If the EPA had
found, based on this review, that the
waste remained hazardous based on the
factors for which the waste was
originally listed, the EPA would have
E:\FR\FM\23FEP1.SGM
23FEP1
10914
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules
proposed to deny the petition.) The EPA
evaluated the waste with respect to
other factors or criteria to assess
whether there is a reasonable basis to
believe that such additional factors
could cause the waste to be hazardous.
The EPA considered whether the waste
is acutely toxic, the concentration of the
constituents in the waste, their tendency
to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their
persistence in the environment once
released from the waste, plausible and
specific types of management of the
petitioned waste, the quantities of waste
generated, and waste variability. The
EPA believes that the petitioned waste
does not meet the listing criteria and
thus should not be a listed waste. The
EPA’s proposed decision to delist waste
from Petitioner’s facility is based on the
information submitted in support of this
rule, including descriptions of the
wastes and analytical data from the
Corpus Christi, Texas facility.
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. How will the Petitioner manage the
waste if it is delisted?
If the petitioned wastes are delisted as
proposed, the Petitioner must dispose of
them in a Subtitle D landfill which is
permitted, licensed, or registered by a
state to manage industrial waste or in
the on-site surface impoundment.
B. What are the maximum allowable
concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the waste?
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).
C. How frequently must the Petitioner
test the waste?
The testing approach for introduction
of this waste stream will be conducted
in a graduated approach. During the first
thirty days of sending the delisted waste
to the surface impoundment, The
Petitioner will collect slurry samples
from the influent to the surface
impoundment to determine compliance
with the delisting parameters. The
Petitioner will prepare a monthly report
to determine if the delisted waste in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Feb 22, 2021
Jkt 253001
compliance with the delisting
parameters. If compliance with the
delisting parameters is demonstrated
with analytical testing for thirty days,
the Petitioner may decrease its sampling
frequency for this exclusion to quarterly
sampling reporting on the delisting
exclusion. This does not supercede the
discharge permit requirements, it gives
only requirements for the submission of
delisted waste related data. If two
consecutive quarterly delisting reports
show compliance with the delisting
parameters, the Petitioner may request
to move to annual sampling for the
purposes of the delisting. The annual
sampling report shall include the
volume of chromic oxide solids
disposed of in the surface impoundment
as well as an annual testing event data.
The petitioner should monitor and
report increasing trends of constituents
which will affect the overall compliance
with the discharge permit.
Thirty days after disposal in the onsite surface impoundment begins,
wastewater samples should be taken at
Outfall 101 as prescribed by the
discharge permit issued by the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) through a Texas Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (TPDES)
Permit No. 003490 (EPA NPDES Permit
No. TX0004685). Discharge from Outfall
101 is intermittent to control freeboard.
At a minimum, an annual sampling
event should be conducted at Outfall
101. A summary of the Outfall 101
discharge data shall be included in the
annual report.
D. What data must the Petitioner
submit?
The Petitioner must submit the data
obtained through verification testing to
U.S. EPA Region 6, Office of Land,
Chemicals and Redevelopment, 1201
Elm Street, Suite 500, M/C 6LCR–RP,
Dallas, Texas 75270–2102. within 10
days after receiving the final results
from the laboratory. These results may
be submitted electronically to Harry
Shah, shah.harry@epa.gov. The
Petitioner 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).
E. What happens if the Petitioner fails
to meet the conditions of the exclusion?
If this Petitioner violates 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
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
compliance with the exclusion criteria
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 Petitioner 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
require the Petitioner 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.
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 Petitioner do if the
process changes?
Any process changes or additions
implemented at Petitioner’s facility
which would significantly impact the
constituent concentrations of the waste
must be reported to EPA in accordance
with Condition VI. of the exclusion
language.
V. When would the EPA finalize the
proposed delisting exclusion?
HSWA specifically requires 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
E:\FR\FM\23FEP1.SGM
23FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules
section 3010 of RCRA as amended by
HSWA.
et seq.) because it only applies to a
particular facility.
VI. How would this action affect the
states?
Because 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 under
section 3009 of RCRA. These more
stringent requirements may include a
provision that prohibits a federally
issued exclusion from taking effect in
the state. We urge petitioners to contact
the state regulatory authority to
establish the status of their wastes under
the state law.
EPA has also authorized some states
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 Petitioner manages
the wastes in any state with delisting
authorization, the Petitioner must obtain
delisting authorization or other
determination from the receiving state
before it can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in that state.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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.
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.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
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
This proposed action is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, because it is not
a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Feb 22, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10915
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.) or
the on-site surface impoundment.
Therefore, the EPA believes that any
populations in proximity of the landfills
used by this facility or the Corpus
Christi 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: January 13, 2021.
Ronald D. Crossland,
Director, Land, Chemicals and
Redevelopment Division, Region 6.
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 Appendix IX to Part 261 by
revising the entry for ‘‘American
Chrome and Chemical—Corpus Christi,
■
E:\FR\FM\23FEP1.SGM
23FEP1
10916
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TX’’ to Table 2—Wastes Excluded From
Specific Sources to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 2—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES
Facility
Address
American Chrome and
Chemical (ACC).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Waste description
Corpus Christi, Texas
17:21 Feb 22, 2021
Jkt 253001
Slurry (the EPA Hazardous Waste No. K006) generated at a maximum generation of 1,450
cubic yards on a dry weight basis per calendar year after (effective date of final rule) and
disposed in an on-site surface impoundment. ACC must implement a verification program
that meets the following Paragraphs:
(1) Delisting Levels: All leachable constituent concentrations must not exceed the following
levels. The petitioner must use the method specified in 40 CFR 261.24 to measure constituents in the waste leachate (mg/L). Slurry leachate: Arsenic-0.0377; Barium-100.0;
Chromium-5.0; Thallium-0.355; Zinc-1130.0.
Chromium may not exceed 400,000 mg/kg.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
(A) If the delisted material causes violations of the Discharge permit, ACC must discontinue disposing of the chromic oxide solids in the impoundment and dispose of it in
accordance with the delisting exclusion issued September 21, 2004, until they have
completed verification testing described in Paragraph (3), as appropriate, and valid
analyses show that paragraph (1) is satisfied.
(B) Levels of constituents measured in the samples of the slurry that do not exceed the
levels set forth in Paragraph (1) are non-hazardous. ACC can manage and dispose
the non-hazardous slurry according to all applicable solid waste regulations.
(C) If constituent levels in a sample exceed any of the delisting levels set in Paragraph
(1), ACC must retreat the batches of waste used to generate the representative sample until it meets the levels. ACC must repeat the analyses of the treated waste.
(D) If the facility does not treat the waste or retreat it until it meets the delisting levels in
Paragraph (1), ACC must manage and dispose the waste generated under Subtitle C
of RCRA.
(E) ACC must maintain a record of the actual volume of the slurry to be disposed in the
on-site impoundment according to the requirements in Paragraph (5).
(3) Verification Testing Requirements: ACC must perform sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures, according to appropriate methods such as those found
in SW–846 or other reliable sources (with the exception of analyses requiring the use of
SW–846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, which must be used without substitution).
(A) During the first thirty days of sending the slurry to the surface impoundment, ACC
will collect slurry samples from the influent to the surface impoundment to determine
compliance with the delisting levels in Paragraph (1).
(B) Thirty days after disposal in the on-site surface impoundment begins, ACC will take
samples of the wastewater from Outfall 101 as prescribed by the discharge permit
issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) through a Texas
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Permit No. 003490 (EPA NPDES
Permit No. TX0004685). Wastewater samples will be analyzed for the constituents in
the TPDES Permit 003490 and in Paragraph (1). Discharge from Outfall 101 is intermittent. At a minimum, an annual sampling event for the constituents listed in Paragraph (1), will be conducted at Outfall 101.
(C) ACC may decrease its sampling frequency for this exclusion to quarterly sampling
reporting on the delisting exclusion after compliance with the delisting levels in Paragraph (1) is demonstrated with analytical testing for thirty days. This does not
supercede the discharge permit requirements, it gives only requirements for the submission of delisted waste related data.
(D) If two consecutive quarterly delisting reports show no exceedances of the delisting
levels in Paragraph (1), ACC may request to move to annual sampling for the purposes of the delisting. The annual sampling report shall include the volume of chromic
oxide solids disposed of in the surface impoundment as well as an annual testing data
for Outfall 101.
(E) ACC should monitor and report increasing trends of constituents which will affect the
overall compliance with the discharge permit. ACC shall analyze the verification samples according to the constituent list specified in Paragraph (1) and submit the analytical results to EPA within 10 days of receiving the analytical results. If the EPA determines that the data collected under this Paragraph do not support the data provided
for the petition, the exclusion will not cover the generated wastes. The EPA will notify
ACC the decision in writing within two weeks of receiving this information.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If ACC significantly changes the process described in
its petition or starts any processes that may or could affect the composition or type of
waste generated as established under Paragraph (1) (by illustration, but not limitation,
changes in equipment or operating conditions of the treatment process), they must notify
the EPA in writing; they may no longer handle the wastes generated from the new process
as nonhazardous until the test results of the wastes meet the delisting levels set in Paragraph (1) and they have received written approval to do so from the EPA.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23FEP1.SGM
23FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules
10917
TABLE 2—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
(5) Data Submittals: ACC must submit the information described below. If ACC fails to submit
the required data within the specified time or maintain the required records on-site for the
specified time, the EPA, at its discretion, will consider this sufficient basis to reopen the exclusion as described in Paragraph 6. ACC must:
A. Submit the data obtained through Paragraph 3 to the Chief, RCRA Permits & Solid
Waste Section, Mail Code, (6LCR–RP) US EPA Region 6,1201 Elm Street, Suite 500,
Dallas, TX 75270 within the time specified. Data may be submitted via email to the
technical contact for the delisting program.
B. Compile records of operating conditions and analytical data from Paragraph (3), summarized, and maintained on-site for a minimum of five years.
C. Furnish these records and data when the EPA or the State of Texas request them for
inspection.
D. Send along with all data a signed copy of the following certification statement, to attest to the truth and accuracy of the data submitted: ‘‘Under civil and criminal penalty
of law for the making or submission of false or fraudulent statements or representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Federal Code, which include, but
may not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify that the information contained in or accompanying this document is true, accurate and complete. As to
the (those) identified section(s) of this document for which I cannot personally verify its
(their) truth and accuracy, I certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility for the persons who, acting under my direct instructions, made the verification
that this information is true, accurate and complete. If any of this information is determined by the EPA in its sole discretion to be false, inaccurate or incomplete, and upon
conveyance of this fact to the company, I recognize and agree that this exclusion of
waste will be void as if it never had effect or to the extent directed by the EPA and
that the company will be liable for any actions taken in contravention of the company’s
RCRA and CERCLA obligations premised upon the company’s reliance on the void
exclusion.’’
(6) Reopener:
(A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, ACC possesses or is otherwise made
aware of any environmental data (including but not limited to leachate data or ground
water monitoring data) or any other data relevant to the delisted waste indicating that
any constituent identified for the delisting verification testing is at level higher than the
delisting level allowed by the Division Director in granting the petition, then the facility
must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data.
(B) If the verification testing of the waste does not meet the delisting requirements in
Paragraph 1, ACC must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10
days of first possessing or being made aware of that data.
(C) If ACC fails to submit the information described in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B) or
if any other information is received from any source, the Division Director will make a
preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires 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.
(D) If the Division Director determines that the reported information does require Agency
action, the Division Director will notify the facility in writing of the actions the Division
Director believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing the facility with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed Agency action
is not necessary. The facility shall have 10 days from the date of the Division Director’s notice to present such information.
(E) Following the receipt of information from the facility described in paragraph (6)(D) or
(if no information is presented under paragraph (6)(D)) the initial receipt of information
described in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B), the Division Director will issue a final written determination describing the Agency actions that are necessary to protect human
health or the environment. Any required action described in the Division Director’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Division Director provides
otherwise.
(7) Notification Requirements: ACC must do the following before transporting the delisted
waste: Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting petition and
a possible revocation of the decision.
(A) Provide a one-time written notification to any State Regulatory Agency to which or
through which they will transport the delisted waste described above for disposal, 60
days before beginning such activities. If ACC transports the excluded waste to or manages the waste in any state with delisting authorization, ACC must obtain delisting authorization from that state before it can manage the waste as nonhazardous in the
state.
(B) Update the one-time written notification if they ship the delisted waste to a different
disposal facility.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Feb 22, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23FEP1.SGM
23FEP1
10918
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
(C) Failure to provide the notification will result in a violation of the delisting variance and
a possible revocation of the exclusion.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2021–02939 Filed 2–22–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 700
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0493; FRL–10020–
69]
RIN 2070–AK64
Fees for the Administration of the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA);
Extension of Comment Period
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of
comment period.
AGENCY:
In the Federal Register of
January 11, 2021, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) proposed
updates and adjustments to the 2018
fees rule established under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). This
document extends the comment period
for 30 days from February 25, 2021 to
March 27, 2021.
DATES: The comment period for the
proposed rule published at 86 FR 1890
on January 11, 2021, is extended.
Comments, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2020–0493, must be received on
or before March 27, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Feb 22, 2021
Jkt 253001
*
*
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2020–0493,
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting
comments. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
Please note that due to the public
health emergency the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room
was closed to public visitors on March
31, 2020. Our EPA/DC staff will
continue to provide customer service
via email, phone, and webform. For
further information on EPA/DC services,
docket contact information and the
current status of the EPA/DC and
Reading Room, please visit https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical information contact:
Marc Edmonds, Existing Chemicals Risk
Management Division, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460–0001; telephone number: (202)
566–0758; email address:
edmonds.marc@epa.gov.
For general information contact: The
TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422
South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY
14620; telephone number: (202) 554–
1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
document extends the public comment
period established in the Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
*
*
Register document of January 11, 2021
(86 FR 1890) (FR–10018–40), for 30
days, from February 25, 2021 to March
27, 2021. In that document, EPA
proposed updates and adjustments to
the 2018 fees rule established under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
More information on EPA’s proposal
can be found in the Federal Register
document of January 11, 2021 (86 FR
1890) (FR–10018–40).
An extension of the comment period
was requested by stakeholders to allow
interested parties additional time to
thoroughly review and analyze how the
proposed fees will impact parties
potentially subject to the proposed
updated TSCA fees and fee categories
for fiscal years 2022, 2023 and 2024
discussed in the proposed rule. EPA
agrees that an extension of the comment
period is warranted.
To submit comments, or access the
docket, please follow the detailed
instructions provided under ADDRESSES.
If you have questions, consult the
technical persons listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 700
Chemicals, Environmental protection,
Hazardous substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, User fees.
Dated: February 16, 2021.
Richard Keigwin,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office
of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2021–03554 Filed 2–22–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\23FEP1.SGM
23FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 23, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10911-10918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02939]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R06-RCRA-2020-0379; FRL-10017-28--Region 6]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
modify an exclusion from the lists of hazardous waste previously
granted to American Chrome and Chemical (Petitioner), in Corpus
Christi, Texas. This action responds to a petition for amendment to
exclude (or ``delist'') up to 1,450 cubic yards per year of K006
chromic oxide solids from the list of federal hazardous wastes when
disposed of in an on-site surface impoundment in lieu of disposal in a
Subtitle D Landfill. The Agency is proposing to grant the petition
based on an evaluation of waste-specific information provided by the
petitioner.
DATES: Comments on this proposed amendment must be received by March
25, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Email: [email protected].
Instructions: EPA must receive your comments by March 25, 2021.
Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-R06-RCRA-2020-0379. 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
https://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 https://www.regulations.gov, or email. The Federal regulations.gov website is
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means 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 EPA without
going through 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, EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment with any CD you submit.
If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and
cannot contact you for clarification, 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.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy.
You can view and copy the delisting petition and associated
publicly available docket materials either through www.regulations.gov
at: EPA, Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75270. The
EPA facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-
19. We recommend that you telephone Harry Shah, at (214) 665-6457,
before visiting the Region 6 office. Interested persons wanting to
examine these documents should make an appointment with the office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry Shah, (214) 665-6457,
[email protected]. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the
public and our staff, the EPA Region 6 office will be closed to the
public to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. We encourage the
public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov, as there
will be a delay in processing mail and no courier or hand deliveries
will be accepted. Please call or email the contact listed above if you
need alternative access to material indexed but not provided in the
docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Overview Information
II. Background
A. What laws and regulations give EPA the authority to delist
waste?
B. What is currently delisted at the Petitioner's Corpus
Christi, TX facility?
C. What does Petitioner request in its petition for amendment?
III. Disposition of the Petition Amendment
A. What information did the Petitioner submit to support its
petition for amendment?
B. What factors did EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a
delisting petition?
C. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
D. What did EPA conclude?
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. How will the Petitioner 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 Petitioner test the waste?
D. What data must the Petitioner submit?
E. What happens if the Petitioner fails to meet the conditions
of the exclusion?
F. What must the Petitioner do if the process changes?
V. When would the EPA finalize the proposed delisting amendment?
VI. How would this action affect the States?
[[Page 10912]]
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
The EPA is proposing to grant an amendment to the petition
submitted by American Chrome and Chemical (Petitioner), in Corpus
Christi, Texas to exclude (or ``delist'') up to 1,450 cubic yards per
year of K006 chromic oxide solids from the list of federal hazardous
waste set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations CFR 261.32. The
Petitioner claims that the petitioned waste 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.
The original delisting petition was submitted to EPA in April 17, 2002
and made final on September 21, 2004. Full facility descriptions and
information are provided in the proposed rulemaking (68 FR 64834,
November 17, 2003). Based on our review described in Section III, we
propose to approve the amendment, and allow the delisted waste to be
disposed in the on-site surface impoundment in addition to an off-site
Subtitle D landfill.
II. Background
A. What laws and regulations give EPA the authority to delist waste?
EPA published amended lists of hazardous wastes from non-specific
and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its final and
interim final regulations implementing Section 3001 of RCRA. These
lists have been amended several times and are found at 40 CFR 261.31
and 261.32.
We list these wastes as hazardous because: (1) They typically and
frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous
wastes identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR part 261 (i.e., ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity), or (2) they meet the criteria
for listing contained in 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2) or (3).
Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste
that is described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a
specific waste from an individual facility meeting the listing
description may not be.
For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion
procedure which allows a person to demonstrate that a specific listed
waste from a particular generating facility should not be regulated as
a hazardous waste, and should, therefore, be delisted.
According to 40 CFR 260.22(a)(1), in order to have these wastes
excluded a petitioner must first show that wastes generated at its
facility do not meet any of the criteria for which the wastes were
listed. The criteria which we use to list wastes are found in 40 CFR
261.11. An explanation of how these criteria apply to a particular
waste is contained in the background document for that listed waste.
In addition to the criteria that we considered when we originally
listed the waste, we are also required by the provisions of 40 CFR
260.22(a)(2) to consider any other factors (including additional
constituents), if there is a reasonable basis to believe that these
factors could cause the waste to be hazardous.
In a delisting petition, the petitioner must demonstrate that the
waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics
defined in Subpart C of 40 CFR part 261 (i.e., ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity), and must present sufficient
information for EPA to determine whether the waste contains any other
constituents at hazardous levels
A generator remains obligated under RCRA to confirm that its waste
remains non-hazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics
defined in Subpart C of 40 CFR part 261 even if EPA has delisted its
waste.
We also define residues from the treatment, storage, or disposal of
listed hazardous wastes and mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes
as hazardous wastes. (See 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i),
referred to as the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively.) These wastes are also eligible for exclusion but remain
hazardous wastes until delisted.
B. What is currently delisted at the Petitioner's Corpus Christi, TX
facility?
On April 17, 2002, American Chrome and Chemical petitioned the EPA
to exclude from the list of hazardous waste contained in Sec. 261.32,
the dewatered sludge generated from its facility located in Corpus
Christi, Texas. The waste, the EPA Hazardous Waste No. K006, falls
under the classification of listed waste because of the ``derived-
from'' rule in Sec. 261.3.
Specifically, in its petition, the Petitioner requested that the
EPA grant an exclusion for 1,450 cubic yards per year of dewatered
sludge resulting from its process of manufacturing chromic oxide. The
resulting waste is listed, in accordance with the ``derived-from''
rule.
The Petitioner's wastewater sludge contains approximately 11%
solids. The petitioned waste is only the dewatered portion of the
sludge, not the entire sludge (solids and wastewater) that is generated
from the current wastewater treatment process. Currently, the
Petitioner discharges the wastewater through Outfall 201, into an on-
site storage tank. The discharge is permitted by Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) through a Texas Pollution Discharges
Elimination System (TPDES) Permit No. 003490 (EPA NPDES Permit No.
TX0004685).
In support of its petition, the Petitioner submitted sufficient
information to EPA to allow us to determine that the waste was not
hazardous based upon the criteria for which it was listed and that no
other hazardous constituents were present in the waste at levels of
regulatory concern.
A full description of these wastes and the Agency's evaluation of
the 2002 petition are contained in the Proposed Rule and Request for
Comments published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2003 (68 FR
64834).
After evaluating public comment on the Proposed Rule, we published
a final decision in the Federal Register on September 21, 2004, (69 FR
56357) to exclude the Petitioner's dewatered chromic oxide sludge
derived from the treatment of EPA Hazardous Waste No. K006 from the
list of hazardous wastes found in 40 CFR 261.31.
EPA's final decision in 2004 was conditioned on the disposal of the
material in an off-site Subtitle C landfill at an annual waste volume
generation of 1,450 cubic yards of K006 dewatered sludge. Any
additional waste volume in excess of this limit generated by Petitioner
in a calendar year was to have been managed as hazardous waste. The
waste could not be managed in any other waste unit.
C. What does Petitioner request in its petition for amendment?
In an effort to reduce disposal costs and the administrative
burdens of waste tracking, notification, and recording requirements,
Petitioner petitioned EPA on December 3, 2019 for an amendment to its
September 21, 2004 final exclusion. In its petition, Petitioner
requested to add the disposal scenario of surface impoundment as a
management option for the chromic oxide wastes. The volume of waste is
set at a maximum annual generation of 1,450 cubic yards.
III. Disposition of Petition Amendment
A. What information did the Petitioner submit to support its petition
for amendment?
The exclusion which we granted to the Petitioner on September 21,
2004, is
[[Page 10913]]
a conditional exclusion. No more than 1,450 cubic yards of waste per
year can be disposed of in an off-site Subtitle D Landfill. Disposal in
the on-site Surface Impoundment #3 (Texas Notice of Registration Waste
Unit 22) was not approved.
In order to support its Petition for Amendment, the Petitioner
submitted four new samples of the waste material and the disposal
scenario of the surface impoundment was modeled using the Delisting
Risk Assessment Software. The worst-case scenario of the constituents'
concentrations for the K006 sludge were used as input in the model to
determine if it would meet the hazardous waste criteria for which it
was listed. The maximum total and leachate concentrations for the
inorganic constituents which were found in the analytical data provided
by Petitioner are presented in Table 1.
Table 1--Maximum Total and TCLP Concentrations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum total Maximum TCLP
Chemical name concentration concentration
(mg/kg) (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic................................. 9.54 <0.005
Barium.................................. 20.8 0.034
Chromium................................ 350,836 0.563
Thallium................................ <6.72 <0.05
Zinc.................................... 136 0.020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. 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 section 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 amendment to the 2004 petition
to delist the waste from Petitioner's facility in Corpus Christi, Texas
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.
C. 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 surface
impoundment. We considered transport of waste constituents through
groundwater, surface water and air. We evaluated 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, 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.
D. What did EPA conclude?
The Petitioner does not believe that the petitioned waste meets the
criteria of K006 for which the EPA listed it. The Petitioner also
believes no additional constituents or factors could cause the waste to
be hazardous. The Petitioner also believes that disposal in the on-site
surface impoundment will not adversely impact human health and the
environment. The EPA's review of this petition included consideration
of the original listing criteria, and the additional factors required
by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section
3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1) through
(4) (hereinafter all sectional references are to 40 CFR unless
otherwise indicated). In making the initial delisting determination,
the EPA evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and
factors cited in Sec. 261.11(a)(2) and (3). Based on this review, the
EPA agrees with the Petitioner that the petitioned waste is
nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. (If the EPA
had found, based on this review, that the waste remained hazardous
based on the factors for which the waste was originally listed, the EPA
would have
[[Page 10914]]
proposed to deny the petition.) The EPA evaluated the waste with
respect to other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a
reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors could cause
the waste to be hazardous. The EPA considered whether the waste is
acutely toxic, the concentration of the constituents in the waste,
their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in
the environment once released from the waste, plausible and specific
types of management of the petitioned waste, the quantities of waste
generated, and waste variability. The EPA believes that the petitioned
waste does not meet the listing criteria and thus should not be a
listed waste. The EPA's proposed decision to delist waste from
Petitioner's facility is based on the information submitted in support
of this rule, including descriptions of the wastes and analytical data
from the Corpus Christi, Texas facility.
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. How will the Petitioner manage the waste if it is delisted?
If the petitioned wastes are delisted as proposed, the Petitioner
must dispose of them in a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted,
licensed, or registered by a state to manage industrial waste or in the
on-site surface impoundment.
B. What are the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the waste?
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).
C. How frequently must the Petitioner test the waste?
The testing approach for introduction of this waste stream will be
conducted in a graduated approach. During the first thirty days of
sending the delisted waste to the surface impoundment, The Petitioner
will collect slurry samples from the influent to the surface
impoundment to determine compliance with the delisting parameters. The
Petitioner will prepare a monthly report to determine if the delisted
waste in compliance with the delisting parameters. If compliance with
the delisting parameters is demonstrated with analytical testing for
thirty days, the Petitioner may decrease its sampling frequency for
this exclusion to quarterly sampling reporting on the delisting
exclusion. This does not supercede the discharge permit requirements,
it gives only requirements for the submission of delisted waste related
data. If two consecutive quarterly delisting reports show compliance
with the delisting parameters, the Petitioner may request to move to
annual sampling for the purposes of the delisting. The annual sampling
report shall include the volume of chromic oxide solids disposed of in
the surface impoundment as well as an annual testing event data. The
petitioner should monitor and report increasing trends of constituents
which will affect the overall compliance with the discharge permit.
Thirty days after disposal in the on-site surface impoundment
begins, wastewater samples should be taken at Outfall 101 as prescribed
by the discharge permit issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ) through a Texas Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(TPDES) Permit No. 003490 (EPA NPDES Permit No. TX0004685). Discharge
from Outfall 101 is intermittent to control freeboard. At a minimum, an
annual sampling event should be conducted at Outfall 101. A summary of
the Outfall 101 discharge data shall be included in the annual report.
D. What data must the Petitioner submit?
The Petitioner must submit the data obtained through verification
testing to U.S. EPA Region 6, Office of Land, Chemicals and
Redevelopment, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, M/C 6LCR-RP, Dallas, Texas
75270-2102. within 10 days after receiving the final results from the
laboratory. These results may be submitted electronically to Harry
Shah, shah[email protected]. The Petitioner 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).
E. What happens if the Petitioner fails to meet the conditions of the
exclusion?
If this Petitioner violates 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 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 Petitioner 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 require the Petitioner 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.
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 Petitioner do if the process changes?
Any process changes or additions implemented at Petitioner's
facility which would significantly impact the constituent
concentrations of the waste must be reported to EPA in accordance with
Condition VI. of the exclusion language.
V. When would the EPA finalize the proposed delisting exclusion?
HSWA specifically requires 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
[[Page 10915]]
section 3010 of RCRA as amended by HSWA.
VI. How would this action affect the states?
Because 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
under section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may
include a provision that prohibits a federally issued exclusion from
taking effect in the state. We urge petitioners to contact the state
regulatory authority to establish the status of their wastes under the
state law.
EPA has also authorized some states 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 Petitioner manages the wastes in any state with
delisting authorization, the Petitioner must obtain delisting
authorization or other determination from the receiving state before it
can manage the waste as nonhazardous in that state.
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.
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.) or the on-site
surface impoundment. Therefore, the EPA believes that any populations
in proximity of the landfills used by this facility or the Corpus
Christi 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: January 13, 2021.
Ronald D. Crossland,
Director, Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division, Region 6.
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 Appendix IX to Part 261 by revising the entry for ``American
Chrome and Chemical--Corpus Christi,
[[Page 10916]]
TX'' to Table 2--Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources to read as
follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
* * * * *
Table 2--Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Chrome and Chemical (ACC)... Corpus Christi, Texas.. Slurry (the EPA Hazardous Waste No. K006)
generated at a maximum generation of 1,450
cubic yards on a dry weight basis per calendar
year after (effective date of final rule) and
disposed in an on-site surface impoundment. ACC
must implement a verification program that
meets the following Paragraphs:
(1) Delisting Levels: All leachable constituent
concentrations must not exceed the following
levels. The petitioner must use the method
specified in 40 CFR 261.24 to measure
constituents in the waste leachate (mg/L).
Slurry leachate: Arsenic-0.0377; Barium-100.0;
Chromium-5.0; Thallium-0.355; Zinc-1130.0.
Chromium may not exceed 400,000 mg/kg.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
(A) If the delisted material causes
violations of the Discharge permit, ACC must
discontinue disposing of the chromic oxide
solids in the impoundment and dispose of it
in accordance with the delisting exclusion
issued September 21, 2004, until they have
completed verification testing described in
Paragraph (3), as appropriate, and valid
analyses show that paragraph (1) is
satisfied.
(B) Levels of constituents measured in the
samples of the slurry that do not exceed the
levels set forth in Paragraph (1) are non-
hazardous. ACC can manage and dispose the
non-hazardous slurry according to all
applicable solid waste regulations.
(C) If constituent levels in a sample exceed
any of the delisting levels set in Paragraph
(1), ACC must retreat the batches of waste
used to generate the representative sample
until it meets the levels. ACC must repeat
the analyses of the treated waste.
(D) If the facility does not treat the waste
or retreat it until it meets the delisting
levels in Paragraph (1), ACC must manage and
dispose the waste generated under Subtitle C
of RCRA.
(E) ACC must maintain a record of the actual
volume of the slurry to be disposed in the
on-site impoundment according to the
requirements in Paragraph (5).
(3) Verification Testing Requirements: ACC must
perform sample collection and analyses,
including quality control procedures, according
to appropriate methods such as those found in
SW-846 or other reliable sources (with the
exception of analyses requiring the use of SW-
846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR
260.11, which must be used without
substitution).
(A) During the first thirty days of sending
the slurry to the surface impoundment, ACC
will collect slurry samples from the
influent to the surface impoundment to
determine compliance with the delisting
levels in Paragraph (1).
(B) Thirty days after disposal in the on-site
surface impoundment begins, ACC will take
samples of the wastewater from Outfall 101
as prescribed by the discharge permit issued
by the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ) through a Texas Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Permit
No. 003490 (EPA NPDES Permit No. TX0004685).
Wastewater samples will be analyzed for the
constituents in the TPDES Permit 003490 and
in Paragraph (1). Discharge from Outfall 101
is intermittent. At a minimum, an annual
sampling event for the constituents listed
in Paragraph (1), will be conducted at
Outfall 101.
(C) ACC may decrease its sampling frequency
for this exclusion to quarterly sampling
reporting on the delisting exclusion after
compliance with the delisting levels in
Paragraph (1) is demonstrated with
analytical testing for thirty days. This
does not supercede the discharge permit
requirements, it gives only requirements for
the submission of delisted waste related
data.
(D) If two consecutive quarterly delisting
reports show no exceedances of the delisting
levels in Paragraph (1), ACC may request to
move to annual sampling for the purposes of
the delisting. The annual sampling report
shall include the volume of chromic oxide
solids disposed of in the surface
impoundment as well as an annual testing
data for Outfall 101.
(E) ACC should monitor and report increasing
trends of constituents which will affect the
overall compliance with the discharge
permit. ACC shall analyze the verification
samples according to the constituent list
specified in Paragraph (1) and submit the
analytical results to EPA within 10 days of
receiving the analytical results. If the EPA
determines that the data collected under
this Paragraph do not support the data
provided for the petition, the exclusion
will not cover the generated wastes. The EPA
will notify ACC the decision in writing
within two weeks of receiving this
information.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If ACC
significantly changes the process described in
its petition or starts any processes that may
or could affect the composition or type of
waste generated as established under Paragraph
(1) (by illustration, but not limitation,
changes in equipment or operating conditions of
the treatment process), they must notify the
EPA in writing; they may no longer handle the
wastes generated from the new process as
nonhazardous until the test results of the
wastes meet the delisting levels set in
Paragraph (1) and they have received written
approval to do so from the EPA.
[[Page 10917]]
(5) Data Submittals: ACC must submit the
information described below. If ACC fails to
submit the required data within the specified
time or maintain the required records on-site
for the specified time, the EPA, at its
discretion, will consider this sufficient basis
to reopen the exclusion as described in
Paragraph 6. ACC must:
A. Submit the data obtained through Paragraph
3 to the Chief, RCRA Permits & Solid Waste
Section, Mail Code, (6LCR-RP) US EPA Region
6,1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, TX
75270 within the time specified. Data may be
submitted via email to the technical contact
for the delisting program.
B. Compile records of operating conditions
and analytical data from Paragraph (3),
summarized, and maintained on-site for a
minimum of five years.
C. Furnish these records and data when the
EPA or the State of Texas request them for
inspection.
D. Send along with all data a signed copy of
the following certification statement, to
attest to the truth and accuracy of the data
submitted: ``Under civil and criminal
penalty of law for the making or submission
of false or fraudulent statements or
representations (pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Federal Code, which
include, but may not be limited to, 18
U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify
that the information contained in or
accompanying this document is true, accurate
and complete. As to the (those) identified
section(s) of this document for which I
cannot personally verify its (their) truth
and accuracy, I certify as the company
official having supervisory responsibility
for the persons who, acting under my direct
instructions, made the verification that
this information is true, accurate and
complete. If any of this information is
determined by the EPA in its sole discretion
to be false, inaccurate or incomplete, and
upon conveyance of this fact to the company,
I recognize and agree that this exclusion of
waste will be void as if it never had effect
or to the extent directed by the EPA and
that the company will be liable for any
actions taken in contravention of the
company's RCRA and CERCLA obligations
premised upon the company's reliance on the
void exclusion.''
(6) Reopener:
(A) If, anytime after disposal of the
delisted waste, ACC possesses or is
otherwise made aware of any environmental
data (including but not limited to leachate
data or ground water monitoring data) or any
other data relevant to the delisted waste
indicating that any constituent identified
for the delisting verification testing is at
level higher than the delisting level
allowed by the Division Director in granting
the petition, then the facility must report
the data, in writing, to the Division
Director within 10 days of first possessing
or being made aware of that data.
(B) If the verification testing of the waste
does not meet the delisting requirements in
Paragraph 1, ACC must report the data, in
writing, to the Division Director within 10
days of first possessing or being made aware
of that data.
(C) If ACC fails to submit the information
described in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or
(6)(B) or if any other information is
received from any source, the Division
Director will make a preliminary
determination as to whether the reported
information requires 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.
(D) If the Division Director determines that
the reported information does require Agency
action, the Division Director will notify
the facility in writing of the actions the
Division Director believes are necessary to
protect human health and the environment.
The notice shall include a statement of the
proposed action and a statement providing
the facility with an opportunity to present
information as to why the proposed Agency
action is not necessary. The facility shall
have 10 days from the date of the Division
Director's notice to present such
information.
(E) Following the receipt of information from
the facility described in paragraph (6)(D)
or (if no information is presented under
paragraph (6)(D)) the initial receipt of
information described in paragraphs (5),
(6)(A) or (6)(B), the Division Director will
issue a final written determination
describing the Agency actions that are
necessary to protect human health or the
environment. Any required action described
in the Division Director's determination
shall become effective immediately, unless
the Division Director provides otherwise.
(7) Notification Requirements: ACC must do the
following before transporting the delisted
waste: Failure to provide this notification
will result in a violation of the delisting
petition and a possible revocation of the
decision.
(A) Provide a one-time written notification
to any State Regulatory Agency to which or
through which they will transport the
delisted waste described above for disposal,
60 days before beginning such activities. If
ACC transports the excluded waste to or
manages the waste in any state with
delisting authorization, ACC must obtain
delisting authorization from that state
before it can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in the state.
(B) Update the one-time written notification
if they ship the delisted waste to a
different disposal facility.
[[Page 10918]]
(C) Failure to provide the notification will
result in a violation of the delisting
variance and a possible revocation of the
exclusion.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-02939 Filed 2-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
