Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Proposed Rule, 71532-71539 [2022-25213]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
71532
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules
of existing acceptance criteria in 10 CFR
50.46(b). The petitioner argues that
current licensing safety analyses for
LOCAs are no longer valid for fuel at
moderate and higher burnups.
According to the petitioner, the German
regulatory agency uses these criteria.
IV. Conclusion
The NRC has determined that the
petition meets the sufficiency
requirements for docketing a PRM under
10 CFR 2.803, ‘‘Petition for rulemakingNRC action.’’ The NRC will examine the
issues raised in PRM–50–124 and any
comments received in response to this
comment request to determine whether
these issues should be considered in
rulemaking. The public can monitor
further action on the rulemaking that
will address this petition by searching
Docket ID NRC–2022–0178 on the
Federal rulemaking website, https://
www.regulations.gov. The site allows
members of the public to receive alerts
when changes or additions occur in a
docket folder. To subscribe: (1) navigate
to the docket folder (NRC–2022–0178);
(2) click the ‘‘Subscribe’’ link; and (3)
enter an email address and click on the
‘‘Subscribe’’ link. The NRC also tracks
the status of all NRC rules and PRMs on
its website at https://www.nrc.gov/
about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking/rulespetitions.html.
Dated November 17, 2022.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brooke P. Clark,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2022–25523 Filed 11–22–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R06–RCRA–2022–0653; FRL–10104–
01–R6]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste Proposed Rule
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to grant an
exclusion from the list of hazardous
wastes to WRB Refining LP (Petitioner)
located in Borger, Texas. This action
responds to a petition to exclude (or
‘‘delist’’) up to 7,000 cubic yards per
year of solids removed from four
stormwater tanks from the list of federal
hazardous wastes when disposed of in
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 22, 2022
Jkt 259001
a Subtitle D Landfill. Resource
Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA). The
EPA is proposing to grant the petition
based on an evaluation of waste-specific
information provided by Petitioner.
DATES: Comments on this proposed
exclusion must be received by
December 23, 2022.
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: The EPA must receive
your comments by December 23, 2022.
Direct your comments to Docket ID
Number EPA–R06–RCRA–2022–0653.
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 the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that
you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your
comment with any CBI you submit. If
the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, the EPA
may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption and be free of any defects
or viruses.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
You can view and copy the delisting
petition and associated publicly
available docket materials either
through www.regulations.gov or 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 may 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 is the history of the delisting
program?
B. What is a delisting petition, and what
does it require of a petitioner?
C. What factors must the EPA consider in
deciding whether to grant a delisting
petition?
D. Environmental Justice evaluation.
III. The EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What waste did the Petitioner petition
the EPA to delist?
B. How did the Petitioner generate the
waste?
C. How did the Petitioner sample and
analyze the petitioned waste?
D. What factors did the EPA consider in
deciding whether to grant the delisting
petition?
E. How did the EPA evaluate the risk of
delisting this waste?
F. What did the 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?
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules
V. When would the EPA Finalize the
Proposed Delisting Exclusion?
VI. How would this Action Affect States?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
The EPA is proposing to grant a May
2020 petition (‘‘Delisting Petition for
Stormwater Solids’’) request submitted
by WRB Refining LP in Borger, Texas to
exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) up to 7,000 cubic
yards per year of F037 stormwater solids
from the list of federal hazardous waste
set forth in 40 CFR 261.3 (hereinafter,
all sectional references are to 40 CFR
unless otherwise indicated). The
Petitioner claims that the petitioned
wastes do not meet the criteria for
which the EPA listed it, and that there
are no additional constituents or factors
which could cause the waste to be
hazardous. Based on our review
described in Section III, we propose to
approve the petition request, and allow
the delisted waste to be disposed in a
Subtitle D landfill. A copy of the May
2020 petition is located in the docket to
this proposal action.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
II. Background
A. What is the history of the delisting
program?
The EPA published an amended list
of hazardous wastes from non-specific
and specific sources on January 16,
1981, as part of its final and interim
final regulations implementing section
3001 of RCRA. The EPA has amended
this list several times and codifies the
list in §§ 261.31 and 261.32.
The EPA lists the Petitioner’s wastes
as hazardous because: (1) the wastes
typically and frequently exhibit one or
more of the characteristics of hazardous
wastes identified in Subpart C of part
261 (that is, ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, and toxicity), (2) the wastes
meet the criteria for listing contained in
§ 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3), or (3) the wastes
are mixed with or derived from the
treatment, storage or disposal of such
characteristic and listed wastes and
which therefore become hazardous
under § 261.3(a)(2)(iv) or (c)(2)(i),
known as the ‘‘mixture’’ or ‘‘derivedfrom’’ rules, respectively.
Individual waste streams may vary,
however, depending on raw materials,
industrial processes, and other factors.
Thus, while a waste described in these
part 261 regulations or resulting from
the operation of the mixture or derivedfrom rules generally is hazardous, a
specific waste from an individual
facility may not be hazardous.
For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and
260.22 provide an exclusion procedure,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 22, 2022
Jkt 259001
called delisting, which allows persons
to prove that the EPA should not
regulate a specific waste from a
particular generating facility as a
hazardous waste.
B. What is a delisting petition, and what
does it require of a petitioner?
A delisting petition is a request from
a facility to the EPA or an authorized
state to exclude wastes from the list of
hazardous wastes. The facility petitions
the EPA because it does not consider the
waste as hazardous under RCRA
regulations.
In a delisting petition, the petitioner
must show that wastes generated at a
particular facility do not meet any of the
criteria for which the waste was listed.
The criteria for which the EPA lists a
waste are in 40 CFR part 261 and further
explained in the background documents
for the listed waste in the June 30, 1992
publication of the ‘‘Final Best
Demonstrated Available Technology
(BDAT) Background Document for
Newly Listed Refinery Wastes F037 and
F038’’ (https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/
ZyNET.exe/P100VUGS.TXT?
ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=
EPA&Index=1991+Thru+1994&Docs=
&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&Search
Method=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=
&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=
&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=
&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=
0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles
%5CIndex%20Data%5C91thru94
%5CTxt%5C00000035
%5CP100VUGS.txt&User=
ANONYMOUS&Password=
anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C&MaximumDocuments=
1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=
r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&
Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=
x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=
ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page
&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=
1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL).
In addition, under 40 CFR 260.22, a
petitioner must prove that the waste
does not exhibit any of the hazardous
waste characteristics (that is,
ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and
toxicity) and must present sufficient
information for EPA to decide whether
factors other than those for which the
waste was listed warrant retaining it as
a hazardous waste.
Generators remain obligated under
RCRA to confirm whether their waste
remains non-hazardous based on the
hazardous waste characteristics even if
EPA has ‘‘delisted’’ the waste.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71533
C. What factors must the EPA consider
in deciding whether to grant a delisting
petition?
Besides considering the criteria in 40
CFR 260.22(a) and § 3001(f) of RCRA, 42
U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background
documents for the listed wastes, EPA
must consider any factors (including
additional constituents) aside from
those for which EPA listed the waste, if
a reasonable basis exists that these
additional factors could cause the waste
to be hazardous.
The EPA must also consider
hazardous waste mixtures containing
listed hazardous wastes and wastes
derived from treating, storing, or
disposing of listed hazardous waste. See
§ 261.3(a)(2)(iii and iv) and (c)(2)(i),
called the ‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derivedfrom’’ rules, respectively. These wastes
are also eligible for exclusion and
remain hazardous wastes until
excluded. See 66 FR 27266 (May 16,
2001).
D. Environmental Justice Evaluation
To better meet EPA’s ‘‘responsibilities
related to the protection of public health
and the environment, EPA has
developed a new environmental justice
(EJ) mapping and screening tool called
EJ Screen’’ that reports values as a
percentile when compared to a state or
the nation. ‘‘It is based on nationally
consistent data and an approach that
combines environmental and
demographic indicators in maps and
reports,’’ (https://www.epa.gov/
ejscreen). EPA is providing analysis of
environmental justice associated with
this action. We are doing so for the
purpose of providing information to the
public, not as a basis of our final action.
EPA utilized EJ Screen to evaluate
potential environmental justice
concerns in communities at one,& three-, and five-mile radiuses
around the Borger facility. EPA
considers the potential for EJ concerns
in a community when one or more of
the 12 EJ indices is at or above the 80th
percentile when compared to the rest of
the USA. At all three radial
measurements, none of the 12 EJ indices
exceeded the 80th percentile. However,
six different individual block groups
clustered south/southwest of the facility
within the one-, three-, and five-mile
radiuses exceeded the 80th percentile
for one or more indices. This
information is provided in Table 1.
More information on EJ Screen,
including an explanation of the 12 EJ
indices can be found at www.epa.gov/
ejscreen/what-ejscreen.
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
71534
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—BLOCK GROUPS WITH EJ INDICES AT OR ABOVE THE 80TH PERCENTILE FOR THE USA 1
EJ index for
lead paint
(USA
percentile)
Block
Block
Block
Block
Block
Block
1A
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
482339506001
482339507001
482339507002
482339508001
482339509001
482339509004
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
EJ index for
RMP facility
proximity (USA
percentile)
80
85
82
81
–
86
EJ index for
underground
storage tanks
(USA
percentile)
83
87
90
87
84
94
EJ index for
wastewater
discharge
(USA
percentile)
–
–
–
–
–
82
–
–
–
–
–
80
dash indicates the EJ index is below the 80th percentile.
III. The EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What waste did the Petitioner
petition the EPA to delist?
In May 2020, WRB Refining LP
petitioned the EPA to exclude from the
list of hazardous wastes contained in
§ 261.31, stormwater tank solids (F037)
generated from its facility located in
Borger, Texas. The waste falls under the
classification of listed waste pursuant to
§§ 261.31. Specifically, in its petition,
WRB Refining requested that the EPA
grant a standard exclusion for 7,000
cubic yards per year of the stormwater
tank solids.
B. How did the Petitioner generate the
waste?
The principal products manufactured
at the Refinery are gasoline, diesel,
aviation fuel, natural gas liquids (NGL),
petroleum coke, and solvents. The
stormwater tanks are active and have
been in operation for approximately 25
years. To restore capacity in the
stormwater tanks, the Borger Refinery
will be removing accumulated solids.
The solids removal process will
typically occur within a calendar year
and will be an ongoing operational item
for the refinery in the future.
The solids are removed from the four
stormwater tanks. These tanks are listed
as the North Stormwater Tank, West
Stormwater Tank, North Dropout Basin,
and West Grit Trap (hereafter
collectively referred to as ‘‘the
stormwater tanks’’). The four
stormwater tanks are identified as solid
waste management unit (SWMU) No. 50
on the facility’s notice of registration
(NOR) with the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ).
The stormwater tanks solids
originated from both historical and
current operation of the wastewater
treatment system at the refinery. To the
extent possible, hydrocarbons present in
refinery wastewaters have been
recovered. However, historically more
hydrocarbons passed through the ‘‘oil
recovery system’’ and flowed into the
stormwater tanks. Hydrocarbons in the
wastewater can result from various
sources (e.g., crude oil). Over time, more
of the oily streams were routed to
storage tanks from collection system
piping and/or smaller tanks for
interception and recovery instead of
into the stormwater tanks. Recovered oil
from the oil recovery system is stored in
tanks prior to being reintroduced into
the refining process. Historically, these
oily flows occurred in conjunction with
facility operations, were relatively
routine in nature, and not directly
associated with precipitation. As such,
they were classified by the EPA as ‘‘dry
weather’’ flows. By contrast, wastewater
directly associated with precipitation
(i.e., stormwater) is referred to as ‘‘wet
weather’’ flows. The EPA listing criteria
for F037 generally encompasses primary
solids associated with dry-weather, oily
flows.
Since the stormwater tanks receive
what could be classified as dry-weather,
oily flows as specified in the November
2, 1990, Federal Register rule
publication (55 FR 46354, Nov. 2, 1990),
the solids within the four tanks are
believed to be classified as F037 when
generated. WRB Refining assumes that
solids removed from the stormwater
tanks bear the F037 (primary oil/water/
solids separation sludge) listing when
generated.
C. How did the Petitioner sample and
analyze the petitioned waste?
A total of eight acceptable sample
results were provided by Petitioner to
support the petition. The EPA
considered all 8 samples of the
stormwater tank solids and the disposal
scenario of the landfill was modeled
using the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software. The worst-case scenario of the
constituents’ concentrations for the
F037 solids 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 and organic constituents
which were found in the analytical data
provided by Petitioner are presented in
Table 2.
TABLE 2—MAXIMUM TOTAL AND TCLP CONCENTRATIONS
Maximum total
concentration
(mg/kg)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Chemical name
Acenaphthene ..............................................................................................................................................
Anthracene ...................................................................................................................................................
Antimony ......................................................................................................................................................
Arsenic .........................................................................................................................................................
Barium ..........................................................................................................................................................
Benz(a)anthracene ......................................................................................................................................
Benzo(a)pyrene ...........................................................................................................................................
Benzo(b)fluoranthene ..................................................................................................................................
Benzo(k)fluoranthene ...................................................................................................................................
Benzene .......................................................................................................................................................
Beryllium ......................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 22, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
0.04
0.18
6.93
10.5
732
0.26
0.19
0.17
0.16
0.19
0.91
23NOP1
Maximum TCLP
concentration
(mg/l)
<0.00030
<0.00030
0.0293
0.0277
3.1
<0.00030
<0.00040
<0.00040
<0.00070
<0.012
<0.002
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules
71535
TABLE 2—MAXIMUM TOTAL AND TCLP CONCENTRATIONS—Continued
Maximum total
concentration
(mg/kg)
Chemical name
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ............................................................................................................................
2-Butanone ..................................................................................................................................................
Cadmium ......................................................................................................................................................
Carbon disulfide ...........................................................................................................................................
Chromium ....................................................................................................................................................
Chrysene ......................................................................................................................................................
Cobalt ...........................................................................................................................................................
Di-n-butyl-phthalate ......................................................................................................................................
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ................................................................................................................................
Dimethyl phthalate .......................................................................................................................................
Ethylbenzene ...............................................................................................................................................
Fluoranthrene ...............................................................................................................................................
Fluorene .......................................................................................................................................................
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ................................................................................................................................
Lead .............................................................................................................................................................
Mercury ........................................................................................................................................................
Naphthalene .................................................................................................................................................
Nickel ...........................................................................................................................................................
Phenanthrene ..............................................................................................................................................
Pyrene ..........................................................................................................................................................
Selenium ......................................................................................................................................................
Silver ............................................................................................................................................................
Toluene ........................................................................................................................................................
Vanadium .....................................................................................................................................................
Xylenes, Total ..............................................................................................................................................
Zinc ..............................................................................................................................................................
D. What factors did the EPA consider in
deciding whether to grant the delisting
petition?
In reviewing this petition, we
considered the original listing criteria
and the additional factors required by
the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See
§ 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and
40 CFR 260.22(d)(2) through (4). We
evaluated the petitioned wastes against
the listing criteria and factors cited in
§ 261.11(a)(2) and (3).
In addition to the criteria in 40 CFR
260.22(a), 261.11(a)(2) and (3), 42 U.S.C.
6921(f), and in the background
documents for the listed wastes, the
EPA also considered factors (including
additional constituents) other than those
for which EPA listed the waste if these
additional factors could cause the waste
to be hazardous (See the background
documents).
Our proposed decision to grant the
May 2020 petition to delist the waste
from Petitioner’s facility in Borger,
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 22, 2022
Jkt 259001
released from the waste; (6) plausible
and specific types of management of the
petitioned waste; (7) the quantity of
waste produced; and (8) waste
variability.
The EPA must also consider as
hazardous wastes mixtures containing
listed hazardous wastes and wastes
derived from treating, storing, or
disposing of listed hazardous waste. See
40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i),
called the ‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derivedfrom’’ rules, respectively. Mixture and
derived-from wastes are also eligible for
exclusion but remain hazardous until
excluded.
E. How did the EPA evaluate the risk of
delisting this waste?
For this proposed delisting
determination, we evaluated the risk
that the waste would be disposed of as
a non-hazardous waste in a landfill. We
considered transport of waste
constituents through groundwater,
surface water and air. We evaluated
Petitioner’s analysis of the petitioned
waste using the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software (DRAS) to predict
the concentration of hazardous
constituents that might be released from
the petitioned waste and to determine if
the waste would pose a threat to human
health and the environment. The DRAS
software and associated documentation
can be found at www.epa.gov/hw/
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1.2
0.092
1.03
0.026
80.8
0.34
13.3
0.0057
0.061
0.034
0.0063
0.84
0.17
0.12
301
1.58
0.18
439
1.2
0.92
2.8
0.08
0.036
50.4
0.087
930
Maximum TCLP
concentration
(mg/l)
<0.00080
<0.020
0.00689
<0.018
0.00495
<0.00080
0.0355
<0.00080
<0.00060
<0.00050
<0.010
<0.00040
<0.00050
<0.00060
0.102
<0.000030
0.0047
0.142
<0.00040
<0.00030
<0.0110
<0.00200
<0.010
<0.00600
<0.010
2.76
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 groundwater, 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/hazardouswaste-delisting-risk-assessmentsoftware-dras.
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
71536
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules
F. What did the EPA conclude?
Petitioner stated in its petition that
the petitioned waste meets the criteria
of F037 for which the EPA listed it.
Petitioner also stated that no additional
constituents or factors could cause the
waste to be hazardous. Petitioner also
stated that disposal in a landfill will not
adversely impact human health or 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 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)–(4). 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 (a)(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
propose 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 the
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
Borger, Texas facility, and that is
contained in the Petition and
attachments, all of which are included
in the docket to this action.
C. How frequently must the Petitioner
test the waste?
The testing approach for this waste
stream will be conducted as generated.
Prior to disposal of any future tank
cleanouts, Petitioner must conduct
sampling and analysis as described in
the delisting sampling and analysis plan
and ensure that the wastes do not
exceed the delisting parameters. If
compliance with the delisting
parameters is demonstrated with
analytical testing (TCLP analysis), the
Petitioner may dispose of the tank
cleanouts. The annual amount of solids
generated from the tank clean outs may
not exceed 7,000 cubic yards. The
annual sampling report shall include
the volume of solids disposed of in the
landfill, as well as annual testing event
data. The petitioner should monitor and
report increasing trends of constituents
which will affect the overall compliance
with the stormwater discharge permit.
A. How will the Petitioner manage the
waste if it is delisted?
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 Division,
1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, M/C 6LCR–
RP, Dallas, Texas 75270–2102, within
30 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).
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 landfill.
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.
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
B. What are the maximum allowable
concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the waste?
The EPA notes that in some 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 Petitioner
to perform sampling and analysis for
that constituent and sampling type (total
or TCLP).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 22, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 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 1, 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.
The EPA has the authority under
RCRA and the Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et
seq. to reopen a delisting decision if we
receive new information indicating that
the conditions of this exclusion have
been violated or, are otherwise not being
met.
F. What must the 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 the EPA in
accordance with Condition VI. of the
exclusion language.
V. When would the EPA finalize the
proposed delisting exclusion?
HSWA specifically requires the EPA
to provide notice and an opportunity for
public comment before granting or
denying a final exclusion. Thus, the
EPA will not make a final decision or
grant an exclusion until it has addressed
all timely public comments, including
any at public hearings. Upon receipt
and consideration of all comments, the
EPA will publish its final determination
as a final rule. Since this rule would
reduce the existing requirements for
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules
persons generating hazardous wastes,
the regulated community does not need
a six-month period to come into
compliance in accordance with § 3010
of RCRA, as amended by HSWA.
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.) because it only applies to a
particular facility.
VI. How would this action affect States?
Because the EPA is proposing to issue
this exclusion under the federal RCRA
delisting regulations, only states subject
to federal RCRA delisting provisions
will be affected. This exclusion may not
be effective in states which have
received authorization from the EPA to
make their own delisting decisions.
RCRA allows states to impose more
stringent regulatory requirements than
RCRA’s under § 3009 of RCRA. These
more stringent requirements may
include a provision that prohibits a
federally-issued exclusion from taking
effect in the state. We urge Petitioners
to contact the state regulatory authority
to establish the status of its wastes
under the state law.
The EPA has also authorized some
states to administer a delisting program
in place of the federal program, that is,
to make state delisting decisions.
Therefore, this exclusion does not apply
in those states. If the 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.
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.).
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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 13771
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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 13045 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
This proposed action is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, because it is not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 22, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71537
a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 13211.
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
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies to
identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. The EPA defines
environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect
to the development, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA
further defines the term fair treatment to
mean that ‘‘no group of people should
bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies,’’ (https://www.epa.gov/
environmentaljustice/learn-aboutenvironmental-justice).
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 landfill. Therefore, the EPA
believes that any populations in
proximity of the landfills used by the
Borger facility should not be adversely
affected by common waste management
practices for this delisted waste.
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
71538
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules
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
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Environmental protection, Hazardous
waste, Recycling, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 14, 2022.
Ronald Crossland,
Director, Land, Chemicals and
Redevelopment Division.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
6922, 6924(y) and 6938.
2. Amend table 1 of Appendix IX to
part 261, by adding an entry for ‘‘WRB
Refining LP’’ at the end of the table to
read as follows:
■
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 261 as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261 Wastes
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22.
PART 261 IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
*
*
*
*
*
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
■
Facility
Address
Waste description
WRB Refining LP ..........
Borger, Texas .............
Stormwater Solids (the EPA Hazardous Waste No. F037) generated at a maximum generation of 7,000 cubic yards per calendar year after (date rule finalized) and disposed in a
landfill. WRB Refining 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). Stormwater Solids Leachate: Acenaphthene-10.6;
Anthracene-25.9; Antimony-0.109; Arsenic-0.01; Barium-36.0; Benz(a) anthracene-0.07;
Benzo(a)pyrene-26.3; Benzo(b)fluoranthene-224; Benzene-0.077; 2-Butanone-200; Cadmium—0.0911; Carbon disulfide-56.4; Chromium-2.27; Chrysene-7.01; Cobalt—587; Di-nbutyl-phthalate-24.6; Ethylbenzene-10.8; Fluoranthrene-2.46; Fluorene-4.91; Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene-129; Lead-5.0; Mercury-0.068; Naphthalene-0.0327; Nickel-13.5; Pyrene-4.45;
Selenium-1.0; Silver-5.0; Toluene-15.1; Vanadium-3.77; Xylenes, Total-9.56; Zinc-197.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
(A) All stormwater solids from tank clean outs must be tested to assure they have met the
concentrations described in Paragraph (1). Solids that do not meet the concentrations
must be disposed of as hazardous waste.
(B) Levels of constituents measured in the samples of the solids that do not exceed the levels set forth in Paragraph (1) are non-hazardous. WRB Refining can manage and dispose
the non-hazardous stormwater solids according to all applicable solid waste regulations.
(C) WRB Refining must maintain a record of the actual volume of the stormwater solids to
be disposed in the Subtitle D or on-site landfill according to the requirements in Paragraph
(4).
(3) Changes in Operating Conditions: If WRB Refining 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.
(4) Data Submittals: WRB Refining must submit the information described below. If WRB
Refining 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 5. WRB Refining 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.’’
(5) Reopener:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 22, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Facility
Address
71539
Waste description
(A) If, any time after disposal of the delisted waste, WRB Refining 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, WRB Refining 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 WRB Refining fails to submit the information described in paragraphs (4), (5)(A) or
(5)(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 (5)(D) or (if
no information is presented under paragraph (5)(D)) the initial receipt of information described in paragraphs (4), (5)(A) or (5)(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.
(6) Notification Requirements: WRB Refining 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 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 WRB Refining transports the excluded waste to or manages the
waste in any state with delisting authorization, WRB Refining 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.
(C) Failure to provide the notification will result in a violation of the delisting variance and a
possible revocation of the exclusion.
[FR Doc. 2022–25213 Filed 11–22–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 10 and 11
[PS Docket Nos. 15–94, 15–91, 22–329; FCC
22–82; FR ID 113410]
Emergency Alert System; Wireless
Emergency Alerts; Protecting the
Nation’s Communications Systems
From Cybersecurity Threats
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission proposes requirements for
Emergency Alert System (EAS)
Participants to report compromises of
their EAS equipment, communications
systems, and services to the
Commission. Additionally, this
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 22, 2022
Jkt 259001
document proposes requirements for
EAS Participants and Commercial
Mobile Service (CMS) providers that
participate in Wireless Emergency
Alerts (WEA) to annually certify to
having a cybersecurity risk management
plan in place and to employ sufficient
security measures to ensure the
confidentiality, integrity, and
availability of their respective alerting
systems. This document also proposes
requirements for participating CMS
providers to take steps to ensure that
only valid alerts are displayed on
consumer devices. These requirements
would further protect the nation’s
communications systems from
cybersecurity threats. With this Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, the
Commission seeks comment on the
proposed rules and any suitable
alternatives.
Comments are due on or before
December 23, 2022 and reply comments
are due on or before January 23, 2023.
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
You may submit comments,
identified by PS Docket Nos. 15–94, 15–
91, and 22–329, by any of the following
methods:
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/
ecfs/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554.
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 23, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71532-71539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25213]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R06-RCRA-2022-0653; FRL-10104-01-R6]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste Proposed Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
grant an exclusion from the list of hazardous wastes to WRB Refining LP
(Petitioner) located in Borger, Texas. This action responds to a
petition to exclude (or ``delist'') up to 7,000 cubic yards per year of
solids removed from four stormwater tanks from the list of federal
hazardous wastes when disposed of in a Subtitle D Landfill. Resource
Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA is proposing to grant the
petition based on an evaluation of waste-specific information provided
by Petitioner.
DATES: Comments on this proposed exclusion must be received by December
23, 2022.
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: The EPA must receive your comments by December 23,
2022. Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-R06-RCRA-2022-0653.
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 the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment with any CBI you
submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption and be free of any
defects or viruses.
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
or 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 may 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 is the history of the delisting program?
B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a
petitioner?
C. What factors must the EPA consider in deciding whether to
grant a delisting petition?
D. Environmental Justice evaluation.
III. The EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What waste did the Petitioner petition the EPA to delist?
B. How did the Petitioner generate the waste?
C. How did the Petitioner sample and analyze the petitioned
waste?
D. What factors did the EPA consider in deciding whether to
grant the delisting petition?
E. How did the EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
F. What did the 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?
[[Page 71533]]
V. When would the EPA Finalize the Proposed Delisting Exclusion?
VI. How would this Action Affect States?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
The EPA is proposing to grant a May 2020 petition (``Delisting
Petition for Stormwater Solids'') request submitted by WRB Refining LP
in Borger, Texas to exclude (or ``delist'') up to 7,000 cubic yards per
year of F037 stormwater solids from the list of federal hazardous waste
set forth in 40 CFR 261.3 (hereinafter, all sectional references are to
40 CFR unless otherwise indicated). The Petitioner claims that the
petitioned wastes do not meet the criteria for which the EPA listed it,
and that there are no additional constituents or factors which could
cause the waste to be hazardous. Based on our review described in
Section III, we propose to approve the petition request, and allow the
delisted waste to be disposed in a Subtitle D landfill. A copy of the
May 2020 petition is located in the docket to this proposal action.
II. Background
A. What is the history of the delisting program?
The EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from non-
specific and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its final
and interim final regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA. The
EPA has amended this list several times and codifies the list in
Sec. Sec. 261.31 and 261.32.
The EPA lists the Petitioner's wastes as hazardous because: (1) the
wastes typically and frequently exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous wastes identified in Subpart C of part 261
(that is, ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity), (2) the
wastes meet the criteria for listing contained in Sec. 261.11(a)(2) or
(a)(3), or (3) the wastes are mixed with or derived from the treatment,
storage or disposal of such characteristic and listed wastes and which
therefore become hazardous under Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iv) or (c)(2)(i),
known as the ``mixture'' or ``derived-from'' rules, respectively.
Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste
described in these part 261 regulations or resulting from the operation
of the mixture or derived-from rules generally is hazardous, a specific
waste from an individual facility may not be hazardous.
For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion
procedure, called delisting, which allows persons to prove that the EPA
should not regulate a specific waste from a particular generating
facility as a hazardous waste.
B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a
petitioner?
A delisting petition is a request from a facility to the EPA or an
authorized state to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes.
The facility petitions the EPA because it does not consider the waste
as hazardous under RCRA regulations.
In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that wastes
generated at a particular facility do not meet any of the criteria for
which the waste was listed. The criteria for which the EPA lists a
waste are in 40 CFR part 261 and further explained in the background
documents for the listed waste in the June 30, 1992 publication of the
``Final Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) Background
Document for Newly Listed Refinery Wastes F037 and F038'' (https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P100VUGS.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1991+Thru+1994&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C91thru94%5CTxt%5C00000035%5CP100VUGS.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL).
In addition, under 40 CFR 260.22, a petitioner must prove that the
waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (that
is, ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and must
present sufficient information for EPA to decide whether factors other
than those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a
hazardous waste.
Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm whether their
waste remains non-hazardous based on the hazardous waste
characteristics even if EPA has ``delisted'' the waste.
C. What factors must the EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a
delisting petition?
Besides considering the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a) and Sec.
3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background documents for
the listed wastes, EPA must consider any factors (including additional
constituents) aside from those for which EPA listed the waste, if a
reasonable basis exists that these additional factors could cause the
waste to be hazardous.
The EPA must also consider hazardous waste mixtures containing
listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or
disposing of listed hazardous waste. See Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iii and iv)
and (c)(2)(i), called the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively. These wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain
hazardous wastes until excluded. See 66 FR 27266 (May 16, 2001).
D. Environmental Justice Evaluation
To better meet EPA's ``responsibilities related to the protection
of public health and the environment, EPA has developed a new
environmental justice (EJ) mapping and screening tool called EJ
Screen'' that reports values as a percentile when compared to a state
or the nation. ``It is based on nationally consistent data and an
approach that combines environmental and demographic indicators in maps
and reports,'' (https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen). EPA is providing
analysis of environmental justice associated with this action. We are
doing so for the purpose of providing information to the public, not as
a basis of our final action.
EPA utilized EJ Screen to evaluate potential environmental justice
concerns in communities at one-,& three-, and five-mile radiuses
around the Borger facility. EPA considers the potential for EJ concerns
in a community when one or more of the 12 EJ indices is at or above the
80th percentile when compared to the rest of the USA. At all three
radial measurements, none of the 12 EJ indices exceeded the 80th
percentile. However, six different individual block groups clustered
south/southwest of the facility within the one-, three-, and five-mile
radiuses exceeded the 80th percentile for one or more indices. This
information is provided in Table 1. More information on EJ Screen,
including an explanation of the 12 EJ indices can be found at
www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen.
[[Page 71534]]
Table 1--Block Groups With EJ Indices at or Above the 80th Percentile for the USA \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EJ index for
EJ index for EJ index for underground EJ index for
lead paint RMP facility storage tanks wastewater
(USA proximity (USA (USA discharge (USA
percentile) percentile) percentile) percentile)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Block Group 482339506001........................ 80 83 - -
Block Group 482339507001........................ 85 87 - -
Block Group 482339507002........................ 82 90 - -
Block Group 482339508001........................ 81 87 - -
Block Group 482339509001........................ - 84 - -
Block Group 482339509004........................ 86 94 82 80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A dash indicates the EJ index is below the 80th percentile.
III. The EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What waste did the Petitioner petition the EPA to delist?
In May 2020, WRB Refining LP petitioned the EPA to exclude from the
list of hazardous wastes contained in Sec. 261.31, stormwater tank
solids (F037) generated from its facility located in Borger, Texas. The
waste falls under the classification of listed waste pursuant to
Sec. Sec. 261.31. Specifically, in its petition, WRB Refining
requested that the EPA grant a standard exclusion for 7,000 cubic yards
per year of the stormwater tank solids.
B. How did the Petitioner generate the waste?
The principal products manufactured at the Refinery are gasoline,
diesel, aviation fuel, natural gas liquids (NGL), petroleum coke, and
solvents. The stormwater tanks are active and have been in operation
for approximately 25 years. To restore capacity in the stormwater
tanks, the Borger Refinery will be removing accumulated solids. The
solids removal process will typically occur within a calendar year and
will be an ongoing operational item for the refinery in the future.
The solids are removed from the four stormwater tanks. These tanks
are listed as the North Stormwater Tank, West Stormwater Tank, North
Dropout Basin, and West Grit Trap (hereafter collectively referred to
as ``the stormwater tanks''). The four stormwater tanks are identified
as solid waste management unit (SWMU) No. 50 on the facility's notice
of registration (NOR) with the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ).
The stormwater tanks solids originated from both historical and
current operation of the wastewater treatment system at the refinery.
To the extent possible, hydrocarbons present in refinery wastewaters
have been recovered. However, historically more hydrocarbons passed
through the ``oil recovery system'' and flowed into the stormwater
tanks. Hydrocarbons in the wastewater can result from various sources
(e.g., crude oil). Over time, more of the oily streams were routed to
storage tanks from collection system piping and/or smaller tanks for
interception and recovery instead of into the stormwater tanks.
Recovered oil from the oil recovery system is stored in tanks prior to
being reintroduced into the refining process. Historically, these oily
flows occurred in conjunction with facility operations, were relatively
routine in nature, and not directly associated with precipitation. As
such, they were classified by the EPA as ``dry weather'' flows. By
contrast, wastewater directly associated with precipitation (i.e.,
stormwater) is referred to as ``wet weather'' flows. The EPA listing
criteria for F037 generally encompasses primary solids associated with
dry-weather, oily flows.
Since the stormwater tanks receive what could be classified as dry-
weather, oily flows as specified in the November 2, 1990, Federal
Register rule publication (55 FR 46354, Nov. 2, 1990), the solids
within the four tanks are believed to be classified as F037 when
generated. WRB Refining assumes that solids removed from the stormwater
tanks bear the F037 (primary oil/water/solids separation sludge)
listing when generated.
C. How did the Petitioner sample and analyze the petitioned waste?
A total of eight acceptable sample results were provided by
Petitioner to support the petition. The EPA considered all 8 samples of
the stormwater tank solids and the disposal scenario of the landfill
was modeled using the Delisting Risk Assessment Software. The worst-
case scenario of the constituents' concentrations for the F037 solids
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 and organic constituents
which were found in the analytical data provided by Petitioner are
presented in Table 2.
Table 2--Maximum Total and TCLP Concentrations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum total Maximum TCLP
Chemical name concentration (mg/ concentration (mg/
kg) l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acenaphthene...................... 0.04 <0.00030
Anthracene........................ 0.18 <0.00030
Antimony.......................... 6.93 0.0293
Arsenic........................... 10.5 0.0277
Barium............................ 732 3.1
Benz(a)anthracene................. 0.26 <0.00030
Benzo(a)pyrene.................... 0.19 <0.00040
Benzo(b)fluoranthene.............. 0.17 <0.00040
Benzo(k)fluoranthene.............. 0.16 <0.00070
Benzene........................... 0.19 <0.012
Beryllium......................... 0.91 <0.002
[[Page 71535]]
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate........ 1.2 <0.00080
2-Butanone........................ 0.092 <0.020
Cadmium........................... 1.03 0.00689
Carbon disulfide.................. 0.026 <0.018
Chromium.......................... 80.8 0.00495
Chrysene.......................... 0.34 <0.00080
Cobalt............................ 13.3 0.0355
Di-n-butyl-phthalate.............. 0.0057 <0.00080
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene............. 0.061 <0.00060
Dimethyl phthalate................ 0.034 <0.00050
Ethylbenzene...................... 0.0063 <0.010
Fluoranthrene..................... 0.84 <0.00040
Fluorene.......................... 0.17 <0.00050
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene............ 0.12 <0.00060
Lead.............................. 301 0.102
Mercury........................... 1.58 <0.000030
Naphthalene....................... 0.18 0.0047
Nickel............................ 439 0.142
Phenanthrene...................... 1.2 <0.00040
Pyrene............................ 0.92 <0.00030
Selenium.......................... 2.8 <0.0110
Silver............................ 0.08 <0.00200
Toluene........................... 0.036 <0.010
Vanadium.......................... 50.4 <0.00600
Xylenes, Total.................... 0.087 <0.010
Zinc.............................. 930 2.76
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. What factors did the EPA consider in deciding whether to grant the
delisting petition?
In reviewing this petition, we considered the original listing
criteria and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See Sec. 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2) through (4). We evaluated the
petitioned wastes against the listing criteria and factors cited in
Sec. 261.11(a)(2) and (3).
In addition to the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a), 261.11(a)(2) and
(3), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background documents for the listed
wastes, the EPA also considered factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which EPA listed the waste if these
additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous (See the
background documents).
Our proposed decision to grant the May 2020 petition to delist the
waste from Petitioner's facility in Borger, 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.
E. How did the EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
For this proposed delisting determination, we evaluated the risk
that the waste would be disposed of as a non-hazardous waste in a
landfill. We considered transport of waste constituents through
groundwater, surface water and air. We evaluated Petitioner's analysis
of the petitioned waste using the Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS) to predict the concentration of hazardous constituents that
might be released from the petitioned waste and to determine if the
waste would pose a threat to human health and the environment. The DRAS
software and associated documentation can be found at www.epa.gov/hw/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
groundwater, 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.
[[Page 71536]]
F. What did the EPA conclude?
Petitioner stated in its petition that the petitioned waste meets
the criteria of F037 for which the EPA listed it. Petitioner also
stated that no additional constituents or factors could cause the waste
to be hazardous. Petitioner also stated that disposal in a landfill
will not adversely impact human health or 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 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)-(4). 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
(a)(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 propose 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 the 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 Borger, Texas facility, and
that is contained in the Petition and attachments, all of which are
included in the docket to this action.
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 landfill.
B. What are the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the waste?
The EPA notes that in some 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 Petitioner 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 this waste stream will be conducted as
generated. Prior to disposal of any future tank cleanouts, Petitioner
must conduct sampling and analysis as described in the delisting
sampling and analysis plan and ensure that the wastes do not exceed the
delisting parameters. If compliance with the delisting parameters is
demonstrated with analytical testing (TCLP analysis), the Petitioner
may dispose of the tank cleanouts. The annual amount of solids
generated from the tank clean outs may not exceed 7,000 cubic yards.
The annual sampling report shall include the volume of solids disposed
of in the landfill, as well as annual testing event data. The
petitioner should monitor and report increasing trends of constituents
which will affect the overall compliance with the stormwater discharge
permit.
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 Division, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, M/C 6LCR-RP,
Dallas, Texas 75270-2102, within 30 days after receiving the final
results from the laboratory. These results may be submitted
electronically to Harry 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 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 1,
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.
The EPA has the authority under RCRA and the Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et seq. to reopen a delisting
decision if we receive new information indicating that the conditions
of this exclusion have been violated or, are otherwise not being met.
F. What must the 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 the EPA in accordance
with Condition VI. of the exclusion language.
V. When would the EPA finalize the proposed delisting exclusion?
HSWA specifically requires the EPA to provide notice and an
opportunity for public comment before granting or denying a final
exclusion. Thus, the EPA will not make a final decision or grant an
exclusion until it has addressed all timely public comments, including
any at public hearings. Upon receipt and consideration of all comments,
the EPA will publish its final determination as a final rule. Since
this rule would reduce the existing requirements for
[[Page 71537]]
persons generating hazardous wastes, the regulated community does not
need a six-month period to come into compliance in accordance with
Sec. 3010 of RCRA, as amended by HSWA.
VI. How would this action affect States?
Because the EPA is proposing to issue this exclusion under the
federal RCRA delisting regulations, only states subject to federal RCRA
delisting provisions will be affected. This exclusion may not be
effective in states which have received authorization from the EPA to
make their own delisting decisions.
RCRA allows states to impose more stringent regulatory requirements
than RCRA's under Sec. 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements
may include a provision that prohibits a federally-issued exclusion
from taking effect in the state. We urge Petitioners to contact the
state regulatory authority to establish the status of its wastes under
the state law.
The EPA has also authorized some states to administer a delisting
program in place of the federal program, that is, to make state
delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those
states. If the 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 13771
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 13045 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
13211.
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
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal
agencies to identify and address ``disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects'' of their actions on minority
populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law. The EPA defines environmental justice
(EJ) as ``the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to
the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair
treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and
policies,'' (https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice).
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
landfill. Therefore, the EPA believes that any populations in proximity
of the landfills used by the Borger facility should not be adversely
affected by common waste management practices for this delisted waste.
[[Page 71538]]
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: November 14, 2022.
Ronald Crossland,
Director, Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 261 as follows:
PART 261 IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and
6938.
0
2. Amend table 1 of Appendix IX to part 261, by adding an entry for
``WRB Refining LP'' at the end of the table to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261 Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22.
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRB Refining LP...................... Borger, Texas.......... Stormwater Solids (the EPA Hazardous Waste No.
F037) generated at a maximum generation of
7,000 cubic yards per calendar year after (date
rule finalized) and disposed in a landfill. WRB
Refining 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).
Stormwater Solids Leachate: Acenaphthene-10.6;
Anthracene-25.9; Antimony-0.109; Arsenic-0.01;
Barium-36.0; Benz(a) anthracene-0.07;
Benzo(a)pyrene-26.3; Benzo(b)fluoranthene-224;
Benzene-0.077; 2-Butanone-200; Cadmium--0.0911;
Carbon disulfide-56.4; Chromium-2.27; Chrysene-
7.01; Cobalt--587; Di-n-butyl-phthalate-24.6;
Ethylbenzene-10.8; Fluoranthrene-2.46; Fluorene-
4.91; Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene-129; Lead-5.0;
Mercury-0.068; Naphthalene-0.0327; Nickel-13.5;
Pyrene-4.45; Selenium-1.0; Silver-5.0; Toluene-
15.1; Vanadium-3.77; Xylenes, Total-9.56; Zinc-
197.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
(A) All stormwater solids from tank clean outs
must be tested to assure they have met the
concentrations described in Paragraph (1).
Solids that do not meet the concentrations must
be disposed of as hazardous waste.
(B) Levels of constituents measured in the
samples of the solids that do not exceed the
levels set forth in Paragraph (1) are non-
hazardous. WRB Refining can manage and dispose
the non-hazardous stormwater solids according
to all applicable solid waste regulations.
(C) WRB Refining must maintain a record of the
actual volume of the stormwater solids to be
disposed in the Subtitle D or on-site landfill
according to the requirements in Paragraph (4).
(3) Changes in Operating Conditions: If WRB
Refining 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.
(4) Data Submittals: WRB Refining must submit
the information described below. If WRB
Refining 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 5. WRB Refining 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.''
(5) Reopener:
[[Page 71539]]
(A) If, any time after disposal of the delisted
waste, WRB Refining 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, WRB Refining 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 WRB Refining fails to submit the
information described in paragraphs (4), (5)(A)
or (5)(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 (5)(D) or
(if no information is presented under paragraph
(5)(D)) the initial receipt of information
described in paragraphs (4), (5)(A) or (5)(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.
(6) Notification Requirements: WRB Refining 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 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 WRB Refining
transports the excluded waste to or manages the
waste in any state with delisting
authorization, WRB Refining 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.
(C) Failure to provide the notification will
result in a violation of the delisting variance
and a possible revocation of the exclusion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2022-25213 Filed 11-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
