[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46380-46384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22377]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW-FRL-5602-6]


Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of 
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today is granting a 
petition submitted by Giant Refining Company (Giant) to exclude from 
hazardous waste control (delist) certain solid wastes. The wastes being 
delisted consist of excavated soils contaminated with K051 currently 
being stored in an on-site waste pile. This action responds to Giant's 
petition to delist these wastes on a one-time basis from the hazardous 
waste lists. After careful analysis, EPA has concluded that the 
petitioned waste is not hazardous waste when disposed of in Subtitle D 
landfills. This exclusion applies only to excavated soils generated at 
Giant's Bloomfield, New Mexico facility. Accordingly, this final rule 
excludes the petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste 
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 
when disposed of in Subtitle D landfills.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 3, 1996.

ADDRESSES: The public docket for this final rule is located at the 
Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 
Texas 75202, and is available for viewing in the EPA Library of the 
12th floor from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for appointments. The 
reference number for this docket is ``F-96-NMDEL-GIANT.'' The public 
may copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the first 
100 pages and at a cost of $0.15 per page for additional copies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general and technical information 
concerning this document, contact Michelle Peace, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, (214) 665-7430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Authority

    Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition EPA to 
remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding them from 
the lists

[[Page 46381]]

of hazardous wastes contained in Secs. 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, 
Sec. 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to modify 
or revoke any provision of Parts 260 through 265 and 268 of Title 40 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations; and Sec. 260.22 provides generators 
the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a 
``generator-specific'' basis from the hazardous waste lists. 
Petitioners must provide sufficient information to EPA to allow EPA to 
determine that the waste to be excluded does not meet any of the 
criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In 
addition, the Administrator must determine, where he/she has a 
reasonable basis to believe that factors (including additional 
constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed could 
cause the waste to be a hazardous waste, that such factors do not 
warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.

B. History of This Rulemaking

    Giant petitioned EPA to exclude from hazardous waste control the 
excavated soils contaminated with K051-API separator sludge waste 
presently stored in an on-site waste pile at Bloomfield, New Mexico 
facility. After evaluating the petition, EPA proposed, on May 20, 1996 
to exclude Giant's waste from the lists of hazardous wastes under 
Secs. 261.31 and 261.32 (See 61 FR 25175). This rulemaking addresses 
public comments received on the proposal and finalizes the proposed 
decision to grant Giant's petition.

II. Disposition of Petition

    Giant Refining Company, Bloomfield, New Mexico

A. Proposed Exclusion

    Giant petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists of hazardous wastes 
contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32, a discrete volume of 
contaminated soil excavated from its wastewater treatment impoundments. 
Specifically, in its petition, Giant requested that EPA grant a one-
time exclusion for 2,000 cubic yards of excavated soil presently stored 
in an on-site waste pile. The soil is classified as EPA Hazardous Waste 
No. K051--``API separator sludge from the petroleum refining 
industry.'' The listed constituents of concern for EPA Hazardous Waste 
No. K051 are hexavalent chromium and lead (see Part 261, Appendix VII). 
Giant petitioned the EPA to exclude this discrete volume of excavated 
soil because it does not believe that the waste meets the criteria for 
which it was listed. Giant also believes that the waste does not 
contain any other constituents that would render it hazardous. Review 
of this petition included consideration of the original listing 
criteria, as well as the additional factors required by the Hazardous 
and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. See Section 222 of HSWA, 42 
U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d) (2)-(4).
    In support of its petition, Giant submitted: (1) descriptions of 
its wastewater treatment processes and the excavation activities 
associated with the petitioned waste; (2) results from total 
constituent analyses for the eight Toxicity Characteristic (TC) metals 
listed in Sec. 261.24 (i.e., the TC metals) antimony, beryllium, 
cyanide, nickel, vanadium, and zinc from representative samples of the 
stockpiled waste; (3) results from the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 
Procedure (TCLP, SW-846 Method 1311) for the eight TC metals, antimony, 
beryllium, cyanide, nickel, vanadium, and zinc from representative 
samples of the stockpiled waste; (4) results from the Oily Waste 
Extraction Procedure (OWEP, SW-846 Method 1330) for the eight TC 
metals, antimony, beryllium, nickel, vanadium, and zinc from 
representative samples of the stockpiled waste; (5) results from the 
Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test (EP, SW-846 Method 1310) for the 
eight metals listed in Sec. 261.24 from representative samples of the 
stockpiled waste; (6) results from total oil and grease analyses from 
representative samples of the stockpiled waste; (7) test results and 
information regarding the hazardous characteristics of ignitability, 
corrosivity, and reactivity; and (8) results from total constituent and 
TCLP analyses for certain volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds 
from representative samples of the stockpiled waste.

B. Summary of Responses to Public Comments

    The EPA received public comment on the May 20, 1996, proposal from 
two interested parties, the American Zinc Association (AZA) and 
Horsehead Resource Development Company (HRD). The comments consisted of 
the concern that zinc is incorrectly viewed as a hazardous constituent 
to which the EPA Composite Model for Landfills (EPACML) must be applied 
and the need to evaluate delisting decisions in relation to the 
Pollution Prevention Act and the Land Disposal Restrictions.
Classification of Zinc as a Hazardous Constituent
    Comment: The AZA is concerned that, for some reason, EPA in 
connection with the delisting petition filed by Giant Refining Company 
appears to view zinc as a ``hazardous constituent'' to which the EPACML 
must be applied. The AZA contends that zinc is not considered a 
``hazardous constituent'' as defined under RCRA, is not listed on 
Appendix VIII to 40 CFR Part 261 and is specifically excluded from the 
definition of ``underlying hazardous constituents'' in 40 CFR 268.2 
(i). The AZA requests that the final rule be changed to exclude zinc.
    Response: The criteria for making a successful petition to amend 
Part 261 to exclude a waste produced at a particular facility can be 
found in 40 CFR Part 260.22. The regulations in 40 CFR Part 
260.22(a)(2) states that based on a complete application, the 
Administrator must determine where there is a reasonable basis to 
believe that factors (including additional constituents) other than 
those for which the waste was listed could cause the waste to be a 
hazardous waste, that such factors do not warrant retaining the waste 
as a hazardous waste.
    The EPA understands the AZA's concern regarding implication that 
zinc is being viewed as a ``hazardous constituent'' in this delisting 
petition. In response to this concern, EPA will revise the preamble 
language to future rulemakings to read that `` the EPACML will be used 
to predict the concentrations of constituents that may be released from 
the petitioned waste, once it is disposed.'' To evaluate delisting 
petitions, any constituent detected in the leachate of the petitioned 
waste must be evaluated by the EPACML. All organic and inorganic 
constituents detected in the leachate of a petitioned waste are 
evaluated for their potential hazard to human health and the 
environment. Zinc, while it may not meet the definitions of hazardous 
constituent or ``underlying hazardous constituent'' as defined under 
the Land Disposal Restrictions, is a constituent found in Giant 
Refining's waste and moreover, in the leachate of the petitioned waste. 
Therefore, to meet the delisting criteria, zinc must be evaluated to 
determine if as a result of leaching into the groundwater the 
concentration of zinc would pose a hazard to human health or the 
environment.
    In the analysis of the leachate from Giant's waste, levels of zinc 
were detected and the maximum value is reported on the list of 
inorganic constituents found in Table 1 of the May 20, 1996, notice. 
The evaluation of zinc as an ``additional constituent'' is conducted 
and compared to its health-based value and the secondary drinking water 
regulations to determine whether the levels of zinc detected could 
cause

[[Page 46382]]

the waste to be a potential hazard. In the case of Giant's waste, the 
value for zinc is below the level of regulatory concern and should not 
present a hazard to human health or the environment.
Impact of This Delisting Upon Recycling of K051
    Comment: The commenter did not object to the proposed decision to 
delist Giant's waste, since the constituent levels in the waste were 
low enough that HRD did not feel that any statutory mandates were 
violated. The commenter summarized two principal statutory requirements 
that HRD feels must be accounted for in order for any delisting 
decision to be valid:
    (a) The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 established a hierarchy of 
waste management methods, in order of decreasing preference as: (1) 
source reduction, (2) recycling, (3) treatment, and (4) land disposal. 
The commenter emphasized that recycling, such as high temperature metal 
recovery, is favored over waste treatment methods, such as 
stabilization. The commenter also stated that the low levels of metals 
in the petitioned waste were not amenable to recycling; and
    (b) The Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) of RCRA include stringent 
treatment standards which must be met prior to land disposal of 
hazardous wastes. The commenter felt that LDR treatment standards 
should be one of the ``factors (including additional constituents) 
other than those for which the waste was listed'' that could cause the 
waste to be a hazardous waste or to be retained as a hazardous waste 
(see 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)). Again, the commenter did not feel that the 
constituent levels in the petitioned waste were high enough to exceed 
LDR treatment standards.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the statutory 
mandates summarized above are very important considerations. The EPA 
also agrees that the decision to delist the waste which is the subject 
of this final rule is not in conflict with either of these mandates. It 
is also EPA's position that if the evaluation of a delisting petition 
reveals that the petitioned waste meets all the appropriate criteria in 
Petitions to Delist Hazardous Wastes--A Guidance Manual, Second 
Edition, EPA Publication No. EPA/530-R-93-007, March 1993, the 
conditions specified in 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2) have been met, and the 
waste need not be subject to RCRA Subtitle C. That is to say, the 
delisting levels established by EPA are protective of human health and 
the environment, and a waste that meets these levels does not have 
factors that ``could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste.'' Many 
LDR treatment standards are concentration levels below those that would 
be protective of human health and the environment, because they are 
based on what is technologically achievable, rather than on risk.
    The EPA has responded, in an earlier rulemaking, to similar comment 
by HRD concerning the effect that delisting stabilized wastes might 
have on the recycling of wastes to recover metals (see 60 FR 31109, 
June 13, 1995). The EPA's position continues to be that no policies are 
undermined nor regulations violated by the delisting of a waste which 
meets all applicable criteria for delisting. Specifically, the 
existence of an alternate treatment and/or recycling technology is not 
a factor that ``could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste.''

C. Final Agency Decision

    For reasons stated in both the proposal and this document, EPA 
believes that Giant's excavated soil should be excluded from hazardous 
waste control. The EPA, therefore, is granting a final exclusion to 
Giant Refining Company, Bloomfield, New Mexico for its 2,000 cubic 
yards of excavated soil, described in its petition as EPA Hazardous 
Waste No. K051. This exclusion only applies to the waste described in 
the petition. The maximum volume of contaminated soil covered by this 
exclusion is 2,000 cubic yards.
    Although management of the waste covered by this petition is 
relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction, the generator of the delisted 
waste must either treat, store, or dispose of the waste in an on-site 
facility, or ensure that the waste is delivered to an off-site storage, 
treatment, or disposal facility, either of which is permitted, licensed 
or registered by a State to manage municipal or industrial solid waste. 
Alternatively, the delisted waste may be delivered to a facility that 
beneficially uses or reuses, or legitimately recycles or reclaims the 
waste, or treats the waste prior to such beneficial use, reuse, 
recycling, or reclamation (see 40 CFR part 260, Appendix I).

III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion

    The final exclusion being granted today is issued under the Federal 
(RCRA) delisting program. States, however, are allowed to impose their 
own, non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more stringent than 
EPA's, pursuant to section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent 
requirements may include a provision which prohibits a Federally-issued 
exclusion from taking effect in the State. Because a petitioner's waste 
may be regulated under a dual system (i.e., both Federal (RCRA) and 
State (non-RCRA) programs), petitioners are urged to contact the State 
regulatory authority to determine the current status of their wastes 
under the State law.
    Furthermore, some States (e.g., Louisiana, Georgia, Illinois) are 
authorized to administer a delisting program in lieu of the Federal 
program, i.e., to make their own delisting decisions. Therefore, this 
exclusion does not apply in those authorized States. If the petitioned 
waste will be transported to and managed in any State with delisting 
authorization, Giant must obtain delisting authorization from that 
State before the waste can be managed as non-hazardous in the State.

IV. Effective Date

    This rule is effective September 3, 1996. The Hazardous and Solid 
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended Section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to 
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community 
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the 
case here because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the 
existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes. These 
reasons also provide a basis for making this rule effective 
immediately, upon publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act, 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

V. Regulatory Impact

    Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of 
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory 
actions. The effect of this rule is to reduce the overall costs and 
economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. The 
reduction is achieved by excluding waste from EPA's lists of hazardous 
wastes, thereby enabling a facility to treat its waste as non-
hazardous. As discussed in EPA's response to public comments, this rule 
is unlikely to have an adverse annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more. Therefore, this rule does not represent a significant 
regulatory action under the Executive Order, and no assessment of costs 
and benefits is necessary. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
has exempted this rule from the requirement for OMB review under 
Section (6) of Executive Order 12866.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Secs. 601-612, 
whenever an agency is required to publish a general

[[Page 46383]]

notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare 
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis 
which describes the impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the 
Administrator or delegated representative certifies that the rule will 
not have any impact on any small entities.
    This regulation will not have an adverse impact on any small 
entities since its effect will be to reduce the overall costs of EPA's 
hazardous waste regulations. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this 
regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. This regulation, therefore, does not require 
a regulatory flexibility analysis.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated 
with this final rule have been approved by OMB under the provisions of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2050-0053.

VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement for rules with Federal 
mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local, and tribal 
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million 
or more in any one year. When such a statement is required for EPA 
rules, under section 205 of the UMRA, EPA must identify and consider 
alternatives, including the least costly, most cost-effective or least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The 
EPA must select that alternative, unless the Administrator explains in 
the final rule why it was not selected or it is inconsistent with law. 
Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may significantly 
or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency 
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small 
governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in the development 
of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental 
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them on compliance 
with the regulatory requirements.
    The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate for regulatory 
purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector. The EPA finds that today's 
delisting decision is deregulatory in nature and does not impose any 
enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector. In addition, today's delisting decision does not 
establish any regulatory requirements for small governments and so does 
not require a small government agency plan under UMRA section 203.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).

    Dated: August 21, 1996.
Jane N. Saginaw,
Regional Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR Part 261 is amended 
as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

    1. The authority citation for Part 261 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.

    2. In Table 2 of Appendix IX, Part 261 add the following waste 
stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:

Appendix IX--Wastes Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and 260.22

                                 Table 2.--Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Facility                             Address                              Waste description           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
Giant Refining Company, Inc.  Bloomfield, New Mexico..................  Waste generated during the excavation of
                                                                         soils from two wastewater treatment    
                                                                         impoundments (referred to as the South 
                                                                         and North Oily Water Ponds) used to    
                                                                         contain water outflow from an API      
                                                                         separator (EPA Hazardous Waste No.     
                                                                         K051). This is a one-time exclusion for
                                                                         approximately 2,000 cubic yards of     
                                                                         stockpiled waste. This exclusion was   
                                                                         published on September 3, 1996.        
                                                                        Notification Requirements: Giant        
                                                                         Refining Company must provide a one-   
                                                                         time written notification to any State 
                                                                         Regulatory Agency to which or through  
                                                                         which the delisted waste described     
                                                                         above will be transported for disposal 
                                                                         at least 60 days prior to the          
                                                                         commencement of such activities.       
                                                                         Failure to provide such a notification 
                                                                         will result in a violation of the      
                                                                         delisting petition and a possible      
                                                                         revocation of the decision.            
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 46384]]


[FR Doc. 96-22377 Filed 8-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P