[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 22, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42440-42447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17985]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556; FRL-9980-07--Region 6]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a
petition submitted by Blanchard Refining Company LLC--(Blanchard) to
exclude (or delist) the residual solids generated from the reclamation
of oil bearing hazardous secondary materials (OBSMs) on-site at
Blanchard's Galveston Bay Refinery (GBR), located in Texas City, Texas
from the lists of hazardous wastes. EPA used the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software (DRAS) Version 3.0.35 in the evaluation of the
impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the environment. The
residual solids are listed as F037 (primary oil/water/solids separation
sludge) when they are reclaimed from the OBSMs. After careful analysis
and evaluation of comments submitted by the public, the EPA has
concluded that the petitioned wastes are not hazardous waste when
disposed of in Subtitle D landfills. This exclusion applies to the
residuals solids generated at Blanchard's Galveston Bay Refinery (GBR),
located in Texas City, Texas 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 but imposes testing conditions
to ensure that the future-generated wastes remain qualified for
delisting.
DATES: Effective August 22, 2018.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. 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, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information regarding
the Blanchard Refinery petition, contact Michelle Peace at 214-665-7430
or by email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA finalizing?
B. Why is EPA approving this delisting?
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
D. How will Blanchard Refining manage the waste if it is
delisted?
E. When is the final delisting exclusion effective?
F. How does this final rule affect states?
II. Background
A. What is a delisting?
B. What regulations allow facilities to delist a waste?
C. What information must the generator supply?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Data
A. What waste and how much did Blanchard petition EPA to delist?
B. How did Blanchard sample and analyze the waste data in this
petition?
IV. Public Comments Received on the proposed exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?
B. Comments and Responses
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA finalizing?
The EPA is finalizing:
(1) the decision to grant GBR's petition to have its surface
impoundment basin solids excluded, or delisted, from the definition of
a hazardous waste, subject to certain continued verification and
monitoring conditions; and
[[Page 42441]]
(2) to use the Delisting Risk Assessment Software to evaluate the
potential impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the
environment. The Agency used this model to predict the concentration of
hazardous constituents released from the petitioned waste, once it is
disposed.
After evaluating the petition, EPA proposed rule, on October 31,
2017, to exclude GBR's residuals from the treatment of OBSM waste from
the lists of hazardous wastes under Sec. Sec. 261.31 and 261.32. The
comments received on this rulemaking will be addressed as part of this
decision.
B. Why is EPA approving this delisting?
GBR's petition requests an exclusion from the F037 waste listing
pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. GBR does not believe that the
petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA listed it. GBR also
believes no additional constituents or factors could cause the waste to
be hazardous. EPA's review of this petition included consideration of
the original listing criteria and the additional factors required by
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section
3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1) through
(4) (hereinafter, all sectional references are to 40 CFR unless
otherwise indicated). In making the initial delisting determination,
EPA evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and
factors cited in Sec. 261.11(a)(2) and (3). Based on this review, EPA
agrees with the petitioner that the waste is non-hazardous with respect
to the original listing criteria. If EPA had found, based on this
review, that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for
which the waste was originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny
the petition. 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. 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. EPA
believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the listing criteria
and thus should not be a listed waste. EPA's proposed decision to
delist waste from GBR is based on the information submitted in support
of this rule, including descriptions of the wastes and analytical data
from the Texas City, Texas facility.
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
This exclusion applies to the waste described in the petition only
if the requirements described in Table 1 of part 261, Appendix IX, and
the conditions contained herein are satisfied. The exclusion applies to
20,000 cubic yards of residual solids.
D. How will Blanchard Refining manage the waste if it is delisted?
Storage containers with OBSM residual solids will be transported to
an authorized solid waste landfill (e.g., RCRA Subtitle D landfill,
commercial/industrial solid waste landfill, etc.) for disposal.
E. When is the final delisting exclusion effective?
This rule is effective August 22, 2018. 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).
F. How does this final rule affect states?
Because EPA is issuing this exclusion under the Federal RCRA
delisting program, only states subject to Federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This would exclude two categories of
States: States having a dual system that includes Federal RCRA
requirements and their own requirements, and States who have received
our authorization to make their own delisting decisions.
Here are the details: We allow states to impose their own non-RCRA
regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under
section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a
provision that prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking
effect in the State. Because a dual system (that is, both Federal
(RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's
waste, we urge petitioners to contact the State regulatory authority to
establish the status of their wastes under the State law.
EPA has also authorized some States (for example, Louisiana,
Georgia, Illinois) 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 authorized States. If Blanchard
transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any State
with delisting authorization, Blanchard must obtain delisting
authorization from that State before they can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in the State.
II. Background
A. What is a delisting?
A delisting petition is a request from a generator to EPA or
another agency with jurisdiction to exclude from the list of hazardous
wastes, wastes the generator does not consider hazardous under RCRA.
B. What regulations allow facilities to delist a waste?
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition the EPA to
remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding them from
the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Sec. Sec. 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
266, 268 and 273 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Section 260.22 provides generators the opportunity to petition the
Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator-specific'' basis from
the hazardous waste lists.
C. What information must the generator supply?
Petitioners must provide sufficient information to EPA to allow the
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.
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Data
A. What waste and how much did Blanchard petition EPA to delist?
In June 2017, Blanchard petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists of
hazardous wastes contained in Sec. Sec. 261.31 and 261.32, residual
solids (F037) generated during reclamation activities conducted at its
GBR facility located in Texas City, Texas. The waste falls under the
classification of listed
[[Page 42442]]
waste pursuant to Sec. Sec. 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, in its
petition, Blanchard requested that EPA grant a conditional exclusion
for the annual generation volume of 20,000 cubic yards of F037 residual
solids.
The 40 CFR part 261 Appendix VII hazardous constituents which are
the basis for listing can be found in Table 1.
Table 1--EPA Waste Codes for OBSM Residual Solids and the Basis for
Listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste code Basis for listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F037................................... Benzene, benzo(a)pyrene,
chrysene, lead, chromium.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. How did Blanchard sample and analyze the waste data in this
petition?
To support its petition, Blanchard conducted individual sampling
events on residual solids resulting from the reclamation of Blanchard's
three (3) identified categories of OBSMs. Each separate sampling event
consisted of four (4) composite samples taken during a 24-hour period
of representative operation. Each composite sample was comprised of
individual grab samples (i.e., a minimum of four), obtained during
separate six (6) hour periods of the 24-hour sampling event.
Compositing of samples and performance of quality control requirements
were performed by Blanchard's selected analytical laboratory,
TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc. (``TestAmerica''). Blanchard submitted:
Historical information on waste generation and management practices;
and analytical results from twelve samples for total and TCLP
concentrations of constituents of concern (COC)s.
Table 2--Analytical Results/Maximum Allowable Delisting Concentration Residual Solids Blanchard Refining Company
LLC, Texas City, Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum total Maximum TCLP Maximum TCLP
Constituent concentration concentration delisting level
(mg/kg) (mg/L) (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone................................................ 0.185 0.226 520.0
Antimony............................................... 53.7 0.226 0.599
Anthracene............................................. 0.488 <0.0125 25.993
Arsenic................................................ 222.0 0.277 0.424
Barium................................................. 950.0 0.221 36.0
Benzene................................................ 1.25 <0.00280 0.077
Benzo (a) anthracene................................... 0.512 <0.0106 0.070
Benzo(a) pyrene........................................ 0.0298 <0.0123 2.634
Benzo (b) flouranthene................................. 0.286 <0.0125 22.43
Beryllium.............................................. 8.61 0.235 1.764
Cadmium................................................ 0.441 <0.00280 0.217
Chromium............................................... 120.0 0.0550 3.06
Chrysene............................................... 0.272 <0.0103 7.006
Cobalt................................................. 242.0 0.818 0.902
Copper................................................. 639.0 <0.0813 21.527
Cyanide................................................ 99.4 <0.0702 3.08
Diethyl Phthalate...................................... 0.493 <0.0130 990
Flouranthrene.......................................... 0.405 <0.0122 2.462
Flourene............................................... 0.420 <0.00710 4.91
Lead................................................... 963.0 <0.0219 0.984
2, methylphenol........................................ 1.31 <0.00710 28.952
3,4 methylphenol....................................... 2.18 <0.00675 28.952
Methylene Chloride..................................... 0.827 0.00756 0.0790
Methyl Naphthalene..................................... 0.365 <0.0129 0.727
Mercury................................................ 0.0403 0.000104 0.068
Naphthalene............................................ 0.874 <0.0110 0.0327
Nickel................................................. 29,000 <0.00800 13.5
Phenanthrene........................................... 2.16 <0.0112 10.626
Phenol................................................. 6.55 0.00813 173
Pyrene................................................. 1.76 <0.0150 4.446
Pyridine............................................... 0.197 <0.0108 0.5775
Selenium............................................... 13.5 0.0530 1.0
Silver................................................. 1.86 <0.0129 5.0
Toluene................................................ 0.670 <0.00275 15.1
Tin.................................................... 13.8 <0.00590 387
Thallium............................................... 110.0 0.0220 0.0366
Vanadium............................................... 75, 400 0.215 4.6436
Zinc................................................... 1920.0 0.487 197
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: These levels represent the highest constituent concentration found in any one sample and does not
necessarily represent the specific level found in one sample.
[[Page 42443]]
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?
The EPA received fifteen anonymous public comments on the October
31, 2017, proposed rule via regulations.gov. There were ten comments
which had no bearing on the delisting of hazardous waste for Blanchard
Refining. Two comments: EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556-0003 and EPA-R06-RCRA-
2017-0556-0005 were submitted in favor of the issuance of the petition.
Comments and responses to the three adverse comments (EPA-R06-RCRA-
2017-0556-0009) are addressed below.
B. Comments and Responses
General Comment: EPA Region 6 received ten comments through
regulations.gov to which no responses are required. These comments are
numbered: EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556-0002, EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556-0004,
EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556-0006, EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556-0007, EPA-R06-RCRA-
2017-0556-0009, EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556-0010, EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556-
0011, EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556-0012, EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556-0013, and
EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556-0015 in this rulemaking docket. These commenters
expressed concerns regarding wildfires, wind turbines, climate change,
car lithium batteries, and opinions on Lead leaching into drinking
water which are not appropriately addressed as part of the Hazardous
Waste delisting program. Some comments reflect differences in opinions
or preferred outcomes, to which an agency response is not appropriate.
The EPA acknowledges the submission of these comments but notes the
comments are out of the scope of the current final action regarding the
delisting of hazardous waste residuals generated at Blanchard Refining.
Comment 1 (EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556-0009): ``I am writing in
representation of the over 150,000 members of TinyTimmy.org. We are
against delisting these Blanchard solid hazardous wastes because they
do not meet the standards stated clearly by the EPA for such delisting
activity. Many of their own test results show a much higher than
acceptable levels of some of the most toxic chemicals known to man.
This attempt to delist byproducts such as Appendix VII inorganic
constituents of concern, lead and chromium, and Appendix VII organic
constituents of concern benzene, benzo(a)pyrene and chrysene. The
levels found by Blanchard's testing does not meet the EPA criteria for
delistment. Further, doing so violates human safety, groundwater,
environment and worker health. We strongly urge the EPA to reconsider
and follow its actual mission of protecting the health of both humans
and the environment and stop giving out favors to the fossil fuel
industry on our backs.''
Response 1 (EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556-0009). The Delisting Program
requires extensive waste sampling and a risk assessment is performed to
assess a wastes potential harm to human health and the environment. The
program is designed to insure that the wastes which are deemed excluded
will not be managed in a manner to harm human health or the
environment. This waste will be managed in a Subtitle D industrial
waste landfill as solid waste to prevent releases to groundwater and
air pathways.
Comment 2 (EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556-0014). ``I oppose the petition
for delisting and believe delisting would pose a threat to the
public.''
Response 2 (EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556-0014). The Delisting Program
requires extensive waste sampling and a risk assessment is performed to
assess a wastes potential harm to human health and the environment. The
program is designed to insure that the wastes which are deemed excluded
will not be managed in a manner to harm human health or the
environment. This waste will be managed in a Subtitle D industrial
waste landfill as solid waste to prevent releases to groundwater and
air pathways.
Comment 3 (EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556-0016). ``I'd like to say thank
you for opportunity to comment. My concern is regarding the delisting
mandate of the Blanchard Refinery residual solid waste stream with
chemicals that are classifiable as known carcinogenicity to human. The
EPA is basing the ruling on the results from DRAS (Hazardous Waste
Delisting Risk Assessment Software). Per the EPA, ``the DRAS is a risk
assessment tool and, therefore, can only provide risk analyses based on
the information input into the program.'' Therefore, this software is
not a dynamic simulation of the site's actual contaminates level but
rather a ``subjective'' user input simulation.
Also, the criteria for demonstration of health-based levels is the
Maximum Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) delisting
level. Does this limit cover worksite exposure limits? Will rate of
evaporation affect the TCLP concentration? If so, will there be
continuous monitoring at the site? For example, Cobalt meets the
Maximum TCLP delisting level criteria of 0.902 (mg/L); however, per a
New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services Hazardous Substance
Fact Sheet, it does not meet the workplace exposure limits.1
The average airborne permissible exposure limits (PEL) according
to:
OSHA: The legal PEL is 0.1 mg/m3 (8-hour workshift)
NIOSH: The recommended PEL is 0.05 mg/m3 (10-hour workshift)
ACGIH: The legal PEL is 0.02 mg/m3 (8-hour workshift)
Based on these limits, the maximum TCLP is, using the most
conservative case, 900% higher. Also, according to the same study, it
is stated that cobalt maybe a carcinogen in humans and there may be no
safe level of exposure of exposure to a carcinogen.
Within the delisted chemicals, I have identified multiple chemicals
in addition to Cobalt that are classifiable as known carcinogenicity to
human, such as benzene and toluene. Since a landfill is considered a
worksite, the chemicals should be reconsidered or the PEL considered in
the criteria for demonstration of health-based levels.''
Response 3 (EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0556-0016). The requirements of the
Federal regulations defined in 40 CFR part 260.20, and 260.22, describe
the process by which wastes may be removed from the list of hazardous
waste. In addition to extensive quality assurance and quality control
data for the samples taken, EPA performs a risk assessment using the
Delisting Risk Assessment Software to ensure that our decision is
protective of human health and the environment. The constituent
concentrations found in the residual solids are below the
concentrations that would pose harm to human health and the
environment. A waste is eligible for delisting only if that waste, as
generated at a particular facility, does not meet any of the criteria
under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In addition, the
waste may not contain any other Appendix VIII constituents that would
cause the waste to be hazardous. RCRA Sec. 3001(f) and 40 CFR 260.22.
A delisting is only intended to address a specific waste stream
generated at a specific site. Since individual waste streams may vary
depending on raw materials, industrial processes, and other factors, it
may be appropriate not to list a specific waste from a specific site.
Therefore, while a waste described in the 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
[[Page 42444]]
260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion procedure, called delisting,
which allows persons to prove that EPA should not regulate a specific
waste from a particular generating facility as a hazardous waste. A
risk assessment of the petitioned waste is completed and is a part of
the decision factors in issuing an exclusion. Specific health
examinations and worker protection are covered by the facility
operating plans and overseen by OSHA. Worker safety during the
management of this waste to avoid contact with this material are
covered by the Health and Safety plans of the petitioner.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability
and therefore, is not a regulatory action subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rule 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 applies to a
particular facility only. Because this rule is of particular
applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to
the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because
this rule will affect only a particular facility, it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as specified in
section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule will affect only a particular
facility, this rule 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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'', (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule. This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. This final rule provides meaningful burden reduction by
allowing the petitioner to manage an estimated 20,000 cubic yards of
residual solids a year under RCRA Subtitle D management standards
rather than the more stringent RCRA Subtitle C standards. This action
will significantly reduce the costs associated with the on-site
management, transportation and disposal of this wastestream by shifting
its management from RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste management to RCRA
Subtitle D nonhazardous waste management.
Similarly, because this rule will affect only a particular
facility, this rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The basis for this belief is that
the Agency used DRAS, which considers health and safety risks to
children, to calculate the maximum allowable concentrations for this
rule. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This rule
does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of
Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'', (61 FR 4729, February
7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,
and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report which includes a copy of the rule to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of
rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not
required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular applicability. Executive Order
(E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive
policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.
EPA has determined that this rule 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 did not identify risks from management of this material
in an authorized, solid waste landfill (e.g. RCRA Subtitle D landfill,
commercial/industrial solid waste landfill, etc.). Therefore, EPA
believes that any populations in proximity of the landfills used by
this facility should not be adversely affected by common waste
management practices for this delisted waste.
Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous Waste, Recycling, Reporting and
record-keeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: July 31, 2018.
Wren Stenger,
Multimedia Division Director, Region 6.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended
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. In Table 1 of Appendix IX to Part 261, add an entry for ``Blanchard
Refining Company LLC'' in alphabetical order by facility to read as
follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Waste Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
[[Page 42445]]
Table 1--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Blanchard Refining Company LLC.......... Texas City, TX............. Residual solids (EPA Hazardous Waste
Numbers F037) generated at a maximum
rate of as 20,000 cubic yards annually.
For the exclusion to be valid, Blanchard
must implement a verification testing
program that meets the following
Paragraphs:
(1) All leachable concentrations for
those constituents must not exceed the
following levels measured as mg/L (ppm).
The petitioner must use an acceptable
leaching method, for example SW-846,
Method 1311, to measure constituents in
the residual solids leachate:
(A) Inorganic Constituents of Concern:
Antimony--0.5985; Arsenic--0.424;
Barium--36; Beryllium--1.74; Chromium--
3.06; Cobalt--0.902; Lead--0.984;
Nickel--13.5; Selenium--1.0; Vanadium--
4.64, Zinc--197. Mercury--0.068.
(B) Organic Constituents of Concern:
Acetone--520.0; Anthracene--25.993;
Benzene--0.077; Benzo(a)pyrene--2.634,
Chrysene--7.006; Methylene Chloride--
0.0790; Phenanthrene--10.626; Phenol--
173; Pyrene--4.446.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
(A) Blanchard must manage and dispose its
residual solids as hazardous waste
generated under Subtitle C of RCRA,
until they have completed verification
testing described in Paragraph (3)(A)
and (B), as appropriate, and valid
analyses show that paragraph (1) is
satisfied.
(B) Levels of constituents measured in
the samples of the residual solids that
do not exceed the levels set forth in
Paragraph (1) are nonhazardous.
Blanchard can manage and dispose the
nonhazardous residual solids according
to all applicable solid waste
regulations.
(C) If constituent levels in a sample
exceed any of the delisting levels set
in Paragraph (1), Blanchard must retreat
or stabilize the residual solids
represented by the sample exceeding the
delisting levels, until it meets the
levels in paragraph (1). Blanchard must
repeat the analyses of the retreated
residual solids.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements:
Blanchard must perform analytical testing
by sampling and analyzing the Residual
solids as follows:
(i) Collect representative samples of the
Residual solids for analysis of all
constituents listed in paragraph (1)
prior to disposal.
(ii) The samples for verification testing
shall be a representative sample
according to appropriate methods. As
applicable to the method-defined
parameters of concern, analyses
requiring the use of SW-846 methods
incorporated by reference in 40 CFR
260.11 must be used without
substitution. As applicable, the SW-846
methods might include Methods 0010,
0011, 0020, 0023A, 0030, 0031, 0040,
0050, 0051, 0060, 0061, 1010A, 1020B,
1110A, 1310B, 1311, 1312, 1320, 1330A,
9010C, 9012B, 9040C, 9045D, 9060A, 9070A
(uses EPA Method 1664, Rev. A), 9071B,
and 9095B. Methods must meet Performance
Based Measurement System Criteria in
which the Data Quality Objectives are to
demonstrate that samples of the
Blanchard residual solids are
representative for all constituents
listed in paragraph (1).
Blanchard must perform sample collection
and analyses, including quality control
procedures, according to SW-846
methodologies.
(A) Initial Verification Testing:
After EPA grants the final exclusion,
Blanchard must do the following:
(i) Collect four (4) representative
composite samples of the residual solids
at weekly intervals after EPA grants the
final exclusion. The first composite
samples may be taken at any time after
EPA grants the final approval. Sampling
should be performed in accordance with
the sampling plan approved by EPA in
support of the exclusion.
(ii) Analyze the samples for all
constituents listed in paragraph (1).
Any composite sample taken that exceeds
the delisting levels listed in paragraph
(1) for the residual solids must be
disposed as hazardous waste in
accordance with the applicable hazardous
waste requirements.
(iii) Within thirty (30) days after
successfully completing its initial
verification testing, Blanchard may
report its analytical test data for its
initial four (4) weekly composite
samples to EPA. If levels of
constituents measured in the samples of
the residual solids do not exceed the
levels set forth in paragraph (1) of
this exclusion, Blanchard can manage and
dispose the non-hazardous residual
solids according to all applicable solid
waste regulations.
(B) Subsequent Verification Testing:
If Blanchard completes initial
verification testing requirements,
specified in paragraph (3)(A), and no
sample contains a constituent at a level
which exceeds the limits set forth in
paragraph (1), Blanchard may begin
subsequent verification testing as
follows:
(i) Blanchard must test representative
composite samples of the residual solids
for all constituents listed in paragraph
(1) at least once per month.
[[Page 42446]]
(ii) The samples for the monthly testing
shall be a representative composite
sample according to appropriate methods.
(iii) Within thirty (30) days after
completing each monthly sampling,
Blanchard will report its analytical
test data to EPA.
(C) Annual Verification Testing:
If levels of constituents measured in the
samples of the residual solids do not
exceed the levels set forth in paragraph
(1) of this exclusion for six (6)
consecutive months of subsequent
verification testing, Blanchard may
begin annual testing as follows:
(i) Blanchard must test representative
composite samples of the residual solids
for all constituents listed in paragraph
(1) at least once per calendar year.
(ii) The samples for the annual testing
shall be a representative composite
sample according to appropriate methods.
(iii) Within sixty (60) days after
completing each annual sampling,
Blanchard will report its analytical
test data to EPA.
(D) Termination of Organic Testing:
Blanchard must continue testing as
required under Paragraph (3)(B) for
organic constituents in Paragraph
(1)(B), until the analytical results
submitted under Paragraph (3)(B) show a
minimum of three (3) consecutive monthly
samples below the delisting levels in
Paragraph (1). Following receipt of
approval from EPA in writing, Blanchard
may terminate organic testing.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions:
If Blanchard significantly changes the
process described in its petition or
starts any processes that generate(s)
the waste 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 EPA in writing.
Blanchard may no longer handle the
residual solids generated from the new
process as nonhazardous until they have
completed verification testing described
in Paragraph (3)(A) and (B), as
appropriate, documented that valid
analyses show that paragraph (1) is
satisfied, and received written approval
from EPA.
(5) Stabilization Operation:
Blanchard may periodically elect to
modify operating conditions to
accommodate the addition of chemical
stabilization reagents during indirect
thermal desorption processing. In the
event that Blanchard initiates the
inclusion of stabilization during
operation, they may no longer handle the
residual solids generated from the
modified process as nonhazardous until
the residual solids meet the delisting
levels set in Paragraph (1) under
initial verification testing
requirements set in paragraph (3)(A) and
verify that the stabilization reagents
do not add additional constituents to
the residual solid leachate. Following
completion of modified operation,
Blanchard can resume normal operating
conditions and testing requirements
under Paragraph (3), which were in place
prior to initiating stabilization during
operation.
(6) Data Submittals:
Blanchard must submit the information
described below. If Blanchard fails to
submit the required data within the
specified time or maintain the required
records on-site for the specified time,
EPA, at its discretion, will consider
this sufficient basis to reopen the
exclusion as described in paragraph (7).
Blanchard must:
(A) Submit the data obtained through
paragraph 3 to the Section Chief, 6MM-
RP, Multimedia Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region
6, 1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200, Dallas,
Texas 75202, within the time specified.
All supporting data can be submitted on
CD-ROM or comparable electronic media.
(B) Compile records of analytical data
from paragraph (3), summarized, and
maintained on-site for a minimum of five
years.
(C) Furnish these records and data when
either EPA or the State of Texas
requests 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.
[[Page 42447]]
If any of this information is determined
by 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 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.''
(7) Reopener:
(A) If, any time after disposal of the
delisted waste Blanchard possesses or is
otherwise made aware of any
environmental data (including but not
limited to underflow water 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 either the verification testing
(and retest, if applicable) of the waste
does not meet the delisting requirements
in paragraph 1, Blanchard 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 Blanchard fails to submit the
information described in paragraphs (6),
(7)(A) or (7)(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 EPA
action to protect human health and/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 requires
action by EPA, 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 EPA action is not
necessary. The facility shall have 10
days from receipt of the Division
Director's notice to present such
information.
(E) Following the receipt of information
from the facility described in paragraph
(7)(D) or (if no information is
presented under paragraph (7)(D)) the
initial receipt of information described
in paragraphs (6), (7)(A) or (7)(B), the
Division Director will issue a final
written determination describing EPA
actions that are necessary to protect
human health and/or the environment. Any
required action described in the
Division Director's determination shall
become effective immediately, unless the
Division Director provides otherwise.
(8) Notification Requirements:
Blanchard must do the following before
transporting the delisted waste. Failure
to provide this notification will result
in a violation of the delisting petition
and a possible revocation of the
decision.
(A) Provide a one-time written
notification to any state Regulatory
Agency to which or through which it will
transport the delisted waste described
above for disposal, 60 days before
beginning such activities.
(B) For onsite disposal, a notice should
be submitted to the State to notify the
State that disposal of the delisted
materials has begun.
(C) Update one-time written notification,
if it ships the delisted waste into a
different disposal facility.
(D) Failure to provide this notification
will result in a violation of the
delisting exclusion and a possible
revocation of the decision.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2018-17985 Filed 8-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P