Environmental Protection Agency November 24, 2008 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents
Results 1 - 9 of 9
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Rhode Island Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference
EPA is updating the materials submitted by Rhode Island that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into the State implementation plan (SIP). In this action, EPA is also notifying the public of the correction of certain typographical errors within the IBR Tables. The regulations affected by this update have been previously submitted by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) and approved by EPA. This update affects the SIP materials that are available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center located at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the Regional Office.
Wisconsin: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision
Wisconsin has applied to EPA for final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has reviewed Wisconsin's application and has preliminarily determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and is proposing to authorize the State's changes. We are proposing to authorize the renumbering and revision of Wisconsin's previously authorized regulations.
Literature Search for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) Dose-Response Studies for Use in an Upcoming Expert Panel Workshop
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a 45-day public review and request for additional information on available peer-reviewed literature for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p- dioxin (TCDD) dose-response for use in human health risk assessment. An initial literature search was conducted by EPA through an Interagency Agreement with the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory. Results of this preliminary search are available via the dioxin Web site https://www.epa.gov/ncea/dioxin. The public is invited to review the preliminary literature search results and submit any additional information, specifically peer-reviewed TCDD dose-response studies, to EPA that are not already identified in the literature search. Please submit any information in accordance with the instructions provided below. It is requested that the full publication be provided to EPA if possible. Results of this literature search will be used by scientists from EPA and other scientists from outside of EPA in the conduct of a scientific expert workshop, open to the public, to be held in Cincinnati, Ohio, on February 18-20, 2009. This workshop will be announced in a future Federal Register notice. This notice provides: (1) A link to the electronic list of recent literature search results for TCDD dose-response; and (2) instructions to the public for submitting additional scientific information pertinent to TCDD dose-response assessment to EPA that is not already identified in the literature search.
Leviathan Mine Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed CERCLA Administrative Order on Consent
In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), the EPA is hereby providing notice of a proposed administrative settlement agreement and order on consent (``Settlement Agreement'') with Atlantic Richfield Company (``Respondent'') concerning the Leviathan Mine Superfund Site in Alpine County, California (``Site''). Section 122(h) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(h), provides EPA with the authority to enter into administrative settlements for claims for costs incurred by EPA under CERCLA. The Settlement Agreement resolves certain claims under Sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606, 9607. Under the Settlement Agreement, Respondent will perform certain response actions at the Site through July 31, 2013, pay over $1.7 million to reimburse the United States for certain past costs, pay certain future response costs, pay a civil penalty of $90,000, and perform a specified supplemental environmental project in Douglas County, Nevada, with costs estimated at $400,000. EPA estimates that the response actions to be performed under the Settlement Agreement will cost approximately $5,600,000. The Settlement Agreement and its appendices may be examined at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, Office of Regional Counsel, San Francisco, California 94105, and also at any of the following public information repositories: Nevada State Library & Archives, 100 N. Stewart Street, Carson City, NV 89701; Douglas County Public Library, 1625 Library Lane, Minden, NV 89423; or Alpine County Library, 270 Laramie Street, Markleeville, CA 96120. The Settlement Agreement, together with descriptions of the removal action and the supplemental environmental project to be performed under the Settlement Agreement may also be examined at the following EPA Web site: https://www.epa.gov/region09/LeviathanMine. A copy of the Settlement Agreement may also be obtained by mail from Joshua Wirtschafter, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street (mail code ORC-3), San Francisco, California 94105- 3901.
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Tennessee; Approval of Revisions to the Knox County Portion of the Tennessee State Implementation Plan-“Permit by Rule” Provision
EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Tennessee on October 12, 2007. The revision pertains to the Knox County portion of the Tennessee SIP and includes changes to Knox County Air Quality Management Regulation (Knox County Regulation) Section 25.10Permit by Rule. Specifically, Section 25.10 was changed so that it clearly states that turbines and other internal combustion engines are excluded from the ``Permit by Rule'' provision. This revision is considered by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), to be as or more stringent than the State of Tennessee's SIP requirements. This action is being taken pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Tennessee; Approval of Revisions to the Knox County Portion of the Tennessee State Implementation Plan-“Permit by Rule” Provision
EPA is taking direct final action to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Tennessee on October 12, 2007. The revision pertains to the Knox County portion of the Tennessee SIP and includes changes to Knox County Air Quality Management Regulation (Knox County Regulation) Section 25.10Permit by Rule. Specifically, Section 25.10 was changed so that it clearly states that turbines and other internal combustion engines are excluded from the ``Permit by Rule'' provision. This revision is considered by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), to be as or more stringent than the State of Tennessee's SIP requirements. This action is being taken pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD), Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound emissions from storage of reactive organic compound liquids, polyester resin operations, coatings of metal parts and products, and adhesives and sealants. We are proposing to approve local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD), Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from storage of reactive organic compound liquids, polyester resin operations, coatings of metal parts and products, and adhesives and sealants. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
Underground Injection Control Program; Petition To Renew Exemption From Hazardous Waste Disposal Restrictions to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Class I Hazardous Waste Injection; Occidental Chemical Corporation
Notice is hereby given that renewal of an exemption to the Land Disposal Restrictions under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act has been granted to Occidental Chemical Corporation (Occidental) for five Class I hazardous waste injection wells, identified as Well Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9, and located at Occidental's chemical manufacturing facility near Wichita, Kansas. As required by Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 148, Occidental has satisfactorily demonstrated to the Environmental Protection Agency by petition and supporting documentation that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the injection zone for as long as the waste remains hazardous, and therefore is protective of underground sources of drinking water. This time period is defined by 40 CFR 148.20 as 10,000 years. The final decision allows the underground injection by Occidental of the specific restricted hazardous waste, identified in the Petition, into Well Numbers 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 for as long as the basis for granting approval of the petition remains valid, under provisions of 40 CFR 148.24. For the purpose of the required demonstration of no-migration of hazardous waste out of the injection zone over a 10,000 year period, modeling and projections were based on an operational lifetime projection date of December 31, 2020. Therefore, on or by the closing date of the aforementioned operational period, the operator will be required to obtain another exemption re- issuance from EPA. Included in this approval is the stipulation that Occidental acquires and continues to maintain approved Class I hazardous waste injection well permits from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. As required by 40 CFR 124.10, a public notice was issued on July 21, 2008. In addition to having solicited written comments regarding the Agency's proposed approval, EPA also announced that a formal public hearing would be held if there was a significant degree of public interest, but no interest was expressed, hence no formal public hearing was conducted. The public comment period ended on September 3, 2008. All comments have been addressed and considered in the final decision. This decision constitutes final Agency action and there is no administrative appeal process that can be applied to a final petition decision.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.