[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41604-41610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15009]
[[Page 41604]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R10-RCRA-2018-0661; FRL-9414-02-R10]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Final Exclusion for
Identifying and Listing Hazardous Waste
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (also, ``the Agency
``or ``we'' in this preamble) is granting a petition submitted by
Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC, in Kalama, Washington to exclude (or
``delist'') up to 3,500 cubic yards of U019 (benzene) and U220
(toluene) industrial wastewater biological solids (IWBS) per year from
the list of Federal hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 13, 2022.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-2018-0661. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (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 www.regulations.gov. Due to
restrictions related to COVID-19, docket materials are not available in
hard copy form at this time. If you have further questions concerning
docket materials, we recommend you telephone Dr. David Bartus at (206)
553-2804.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. David Bartus, EPA, Region 10, 1200
6th Avenue, Suite 155, M/S 15-H04, Seattle, Washington 98070; telephone
number: (206) 553-2804; email address: [email protected].
As discussed in Section V of this document, the Washington State
Department of Ecology is making a separate but parallel decision
regarding the Petitioner's petition under state authority. Information
on Ecology's action may be found at https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Permits-certifications/Industrial-facilities-permits/Emerald-Kalama-Chemical.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
II. EPA's Evaluation of Public Comments
III. Final Rule
A. What are the terms of this exclusion?
B. When is the delisting effective?
C. How does this action affect the states?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC located in Kalama, Washington
submitted a petition to the EPA to exclude (or ``delist'') an annual
volume of up to 3,500 cubic yards of U019 (benzene) and U220 (toluene)
industrial wastewater biological solids (IWBS) hazardous waste per year
from the list of hazardous waste set forth in 40 CFR 261.33. The EPA
published a proposed exclusion and request for comment at 87 FR 3053
(January 20, 2022). After consideration of comments received on the
EPA's proposed exclusion, the EPA is finalizing with certain changes
responsive to public comment as described in the following section.
II. EPA's Evaluation of Public Comments
The EPA received six sets of comments on the proposed exclusion,
two of which appear to be duplicate. One set of comments was received
directly by the EPA from the Petitioner rather than through
regulations.gov. The EPA has placed this comment in the docket.
Comment 1. This commenter raised issues relating to communicable
waterborne diseases and impacts on the costs of health care.
Response 1. While the EPA appreciates the comment, the EPA lacks
authority to consider communicable disease vectors associated with
wastes subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The
commenter also recommended that a continuous monitoring or audit
mechanism along with a public communication plan through an email or
push notification should be in place. The EPA notes that Condition 3
includes detailed verification sampling and analysis requirements, and
a provision that the Petitioner must provide the EPA with an annual
report containing the results of verification testing. These data can
be made available to interested members of the public through the
Freedom of Information Act. Given this, the EPA does not believe that a
public communications plan as recommended is necessary. No changes to
the proposed exclusion are necessary based on this comment.
Comment 2. This commenter raised various issues related to benzene
and toluene as listed hazardous wastes. The first point raised by this
commenter relates to Table 5 in the proposed rulemaking, noting ``Table
5 shows a fault in the test sampling. According to the outline of the
case, Table 5 provides the verification of constituents and compliance
concentrations for the waste being addressed.''
The second point raised by this commenter states ``in many of the
materials listed the total constituent concentrations exceeded 100%,
providing inaccurate data.''
The third point raised by the commenter raised various issues
related to sampling and analysis for benzene. These include the
analytical detection limit used as DRAS input, consistency between
benzene analytical data, testing for the characteristic of
ignitability, and changes in physical state for benzene. The commenter
noted that DRAS input for the detection limit for analysis of a TCLP
extract of the waste for benzene is 0.5 mg/l, presumably on the basis
of Table 1. This model input is used to calculate the actual risk of a
modelled waste stream when analytical data are reported as non-detect
at a specified level of detection. However, this number does not
reflect the required analytical method sensitivity required for waste
characterization data and for verification sampling and analysis--for
these purposes, the method detection limits must be less than the
compliance value, which for benzene is 0.166 mg/l for a TCLP extract of
the waste. The actual waste characterization data provided by the
Petitioner do in fact reflect a level of sensitivity (or detection
limit) below the compliance value for benzene. The EPA does acknowledge
there is some variability in the analytical data for most, if not all
constituents of concern, which is to be expected. For benzene, all of
the reported data are well below the calculated compliance level, and
thus support the EPA's conclusion is that the candidate waste can be
excluded from the applicable waste listings, subject to required
verification sampling.
The fourth point raised by the commentor relates to the
Petitioner's sampling of the candidate waste for hazardous
characteristics (e.g., ignitability and toxicity), noting that there is
no evidence of testing for the characteristic of ignitability based on
the potential presence of benzene. This point also noted that benzene
may exist in multiple physical phases (i.e., solid, liquid and gas),
such that the concentration of benzene in the waste
[[Page 41605]]
may vary depending on the state of benzene.
The fifth and final point raised by the commentor proposed applying
a ``cradle to grave'' approach to the excluded waste, on the basis that
such an approach, including consideration of transportation of the
excluded waste, would be necessary to be protective with respect to
benzene.
Response 2. Regarding the first point raised by the commentor, the
comment appears to incorrectly interpret the data in Table 5--these
data are the output from the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS)
model and represent the maximum allowable concentration of constituents
of concern in the candidate waste for the waste to meet the specified
risk levels documented in Table 1 and thus can be excluded from the
specific listed waste codes documented in the proposed rule. These data
do not represent the actual concentration of any particular sample of
the candidate waste. As discussed in the preamble of the proposed
rulemaking, the Petitioner provided the EPA with extensive sampling and
analysis of the candidate waste, which appear in the docket. The EPA
has determined that no additional sampling of the candidate waste is
necessary before finalization of the proposed exclusion.
Regarding the second point raised by the commentor, this statement
applies to model output presented in Table 2, but not Table 5. See
Footnote 2 to Table 2 and Section IV.B of the proposed rulemaking
preamble for a more detailed discussion of this issue. No change is
necessary to address this second point.
Regarding the third point raised by the commentor, the cited model
input is used to calculate the actual risk of a modelled waste stream
when analytical data are reported as non-detect at a specified level of
detection. However, this number does not reflect the required
analytical method sensitivity required for waste characterization data
and for verification sampling and analysis--for these purposes, the
method detection limits must be less than the compliance value, which
for benzene is 0.166 mg/l for a TCLP extract of the waste. The actual
waste characterization data provided by the Petitioner do in fact
reflect a level of sensitivity (or detection limit) below the
compliance value for benzene. The EPA does acknowledge there is some
variability in the analytical data for most, if not all constituents of
concern, which is to be expected. For benzene, all reported data are
well below the calculated compliance level, and thus support the EPA's
conclusion that the candidate waste can be excluded from the applicable
waste listings, subject to required verification sampling. No change is
warranted in response to this point.
Regarding the fourth point raised by the commentor, the EPA notes
that under the hazardous waste exclusion regulatory provisions of 40
CFR 260.22, a petitioner is not required to demonstrate a candidate
waste does not exhibit a hazardous characteristic- rather, this
authority is specific to granting relief for wastes that designate for
one or more listed waste numbers, but not for characteristic wastes. As
provided for under 40 CFR 260.22(a)(2), however, a waste excluded from
applicable waste listings may in fact continue to be hazardous if it
exhibits a characteristic. Independent of an approved delisting
petition, a facility is always responsible for demonstrating through
direct testing or process knowledge that the waste does not exhibit a
hazardous characteristic. The EPA notes, however, that since the waste
characterization data provided by the Petitioner document that benzene
is present only at sub-parts-per-million levels, a level far below the
corresponding toxicity characteristic regulatory level and similarly
well below the level that would cause the waste to exhibit the
characteristic of ignitability, the waste is not expected to ever
exhibit either characteristic. Similarly, the very low concentration of
benzene strongly supports a conclusion that benzene will not appear as
a separate phase, whether solid or liquid. No change is warranted in
response to this point.
Regarding the fifth point raised by the commentor, the EPA notes
that the purpose of the DRAS model used as the basis for this proposed
exclusion is to demonstrate that when a candidate waste meets the
conditions of the exclusion, and subject to a reasonable worst-case
mismanagement scenario, the excluded waste does not pose an
unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. In the case of
the Petitioner's wastes, the reasonable worst-case mismanagement is
defined as placement in an unlined landfill (See Section III.E of the
proposed rulemaking preamble). Therefore, the EPA does not consider the
``cradle to grave'' approach to be necessary. No change is warranted in
response to this point.
Comment 3. This commentor noted that while the proposed exclusion
addressed benzene and toluene as listed hazardous wastes, benzene may
also exhibit the toxicity characteristic. The commentor further
asserted that the Petitioner has failed to show how benzene ``is
suddenly no longer displaying such characteristics.'' The commenter
acknowledged that benzene and toluene in small amounts may not cause
extreme health reactions but noted that if multiple facilities release
these constituents even in small amount, there may be a significant
aggregate effect on the environment and wildlife, specifically
including aquatic life and the Columbia River. The commentor encouraged
the EPA to protect clean water and the endangered and threatened
species in the Columbia. Finally, the commentor asserted that even if
the proposed exclusion is finalized, facilities would still have to
apply for permit ``to dump these chemicals,'' creating more work for
permitting agencies, and questioned whether permitting agencies have
the resources to issue such permits and oversee their implementation.
Response 3. The EPA appreciates and shares the commentors concern
for the environment, wildlife, and the Columbia River. In responding to
questions raised regarding the waste potentially exhibiting the
toxicity characteristic for benzene or toluene, please see the
discussion of this issue in response to Comment 2 above, and the
language appearing in Section II.B of the proposed rulemaking preamble.
No change is warranted in response to this point.
Regarding the potential impact of multiple facilities discharging
these constituents to the environment, the EPA notes this exclusion
does not authorize discharge of any hazardous waste or constituents to
the environment, and that even if the waste is mismanaged will not pose
an unacceptable risk to health or the environment. Finally, the
proposed exclusion is conditioned on the requirement that candidate
wastes be disposed of in a solid waste landfill after the Petitioner
demonstrates compliance with the exclusion criteria. Therefore, the
excluded waste will not be dumped into the environment, and no
discharge permits are required or are appropriate for management of the
waste under the conditions of this exclusion. No change is warranted in
response to this point.
Comments 4 and 5. These two comments appear to be duplicative and
are addressed concurrently.
In the first point raised by the commentor, the commentor objected
to the proposed changes in the hazardous status of U019 (benzene) and
U220 (toluene) and noted the Petitioner claims that these chemicals do
not meet the criteria for which the EPA listed it.
[[Page 41606]]
In the second point raised by the commentor, the commentor asked what
assurance is available that the Petitioner will provide accurate and
evidence-based information.
Responses 4 and 5. The EPA appreciates the concerns raised in this
comment. With respect to the first point raised by the commentor, the
commentor appears to reflect a misunderstanding of the effect of the
proposed exclusion. The exclusion does not at all change the hazardous
listing status of either benzene or toluene. Rather it reflects a
determination that this candidate waste differs from benzene or toluene
as listed as a discarded commercial chemical product, off-specification
species, container residues or spill residues thereof, and that on this
basis the candidate waste does not warrant continued management as a
listed hazardous waste. The proposed exclusion does not in any way
affect the listed status of benzene or toluene in the form of discarded
commercial chemical compounds. No change is warranted in response to
this point.
With respect to the second issue raised by the commentor, the EPA
will, on an on-going basis, critically review records that the
Petitioner must maintain demonstrating satisfaction of the conditions
of the exclusion, including verification sampling and analysis. Where
necessary or appropriate, the EPA may exercise its enforcement
authorities under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to
evaluate the Petitioners compliance with the exclusion, and to take
such enforcement actions as may be necessary or appropriate. No change
is warranted in response to this point.
Comment 6. The Petitioner provided comments that generally
supported the proposed exclusion but raised concerns with
implementation of the proposed sampling verification plan. In
particular, the Petitioner asserted that the proposed verification
sampling requirements will create logistical difficulties and
inefficiencies and proposed specific modifications to the verification
sampling requirements.
The first issue raised by the Petitioner's comment focused on the
proposed requirement to sample IWBS at a rate of one sample per every
ten roll-off boxes. The comment noted that this sampling frequency for
non-cobalt constituents of concern will create logistical difficulties
due to laboratory availability and turnaround time and will create a
backlog of roll-off boxes that cannot be accommodated on-site while the
Petitioner awaits the sampling results. More Specifically, given
anticipated testing turnaround times, sampling results on the 10th bin
might not be available until the 13th or 14th bin has been filled. The
Petitioner asserted that logistically, it is impossible to hold that
many bins onsite while awaiting results and requested clarification on
how to handle bins awaiting analysis and subsequent bins that are
filled in the time between sampling of the 10th bin and receipt of
sampling results.
The second issue raised by the Petitioner noted that because there
are no Washington State accredited laboratories to test for
acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, and formic acid (as noted in the proposed
rule's preamble), the EPA is allowing the Petitioner to use
laboratories that are accredited for other analytes to conduct sampling
for acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, and formic acid. However, the
Petitioner also stated that there are not many labs in Washington State
that can perform tests on the IWBS for acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, and
formic acid, especially in reasonable proximity to the Petitioner's
facility.
Response 6. With respect to the first issue raised by this comment,
the EPA appreciates the logical concerns raised by this comment. In
response, the EPA agrees to extend the required sampling frequency to
one sample every 14th bin. With this change, the Petitioner may sample
the 10th bin of each set of 14 bins but may manage the 11th through
14th bins according to the results of analytical data from the previous
set of 14 bins. That way, results from the 10th bin will be available
by the time the next set of 14 bins begins to be filled, eliminating
the logistical challenges raised by this comment. Given that data
provided by the Petitioner that for non-cobalt constituents, all waste
constituents are expected to be well below the delisting exclusion
limits, and that sampling of one bin per set of 14 as described will
provide adequate assurance of compliance exclusion limits.
With respect to the second issue raised by this comment, the EPA
acknowledges the Petitioner's concern, acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, and
formic acid are constituents of concern (COCs) for the reasons listed
in proposed rule's preamble. As such, the EPA believes it is
appropriate to require testing as outlined in the proposed rule.
Because the EPA is already providing some relief by changing the
sampling frequency from every 10th bin to every 14th bin, the EPA
expects that the Petitioner will need confirmatory laboratory services
only about 12 times per year. While the EPA appreciates the
Petitioner's concern that suitable laboratories may not be located
conveniently close to the facility, some additional burden to ship
samples to a less conveniently located laboratory is warranted due to
the EPA's determination that acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, and formic
acid are COCs, and that verification sampling data are essential for
ensuring full compliance with delisting criteria. No change is
warranted in response to this point.
III. Final Rule
A. What are the terms of this exclusion?
EPA is finalizing the proposed exclusion based on the Petitioner's
petition with certain changes based on comments received, as discussed
in Section II of this preamble.
B. When is the delisting effective?
This rule is effective July 13, 2022. The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6930(b)(1),
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. This rule reduces rather than increases the existing
requirements and, therefore, is effective immediately upon publication
under the Administrative Procedures Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
C. How does this action affect the states?
This exclusion modification is being issued under the Federal RCRA
delisting program. Therefore, only states subject to Federal RCRA
delisting provisions would be affected. This exclusion is not effective
in states that have received authorization to make their own delisting
decisions. Moreover, the exclusion modifications may not be effective
in states having a dual system that includes Federal RCRA requirements
and their own requirements. The EPA allows states to impose their own
regulatory requirements that are more stringent than the 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. As noted in the notice of proposed rulemaking,
Ecology is expected to make a parallel delisting decision under their
separate state authority.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
[[Page 41607]]
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget because it is a rule of particular applicability, not general
applicability. The action approves a modification of an existing
delisting petition under RCRA for the petitioned waste at a particular
facility.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. This final rule maintains meaningful burden reduction afforded
by the existing exclusion consistent with changes necessary to allow
management of liquid effluents expected from startup and operation of
Hanford's Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This 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.).
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This 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.
G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This 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.
H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action applies only to a particular
facility on non-tribal land. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
I. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children.
J. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This action does not involve technical standards as described by
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272).
L. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
EPA has determined that this action will not have disproportionately
high or 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.
M. Congressional Review Act
This 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: July 5, 2022.
Timothy Hamlin,
Director, Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA amends 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
``Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC'' in alphabetical order to read as
follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 1--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC Kalama, Wastewater treatment
Washington. sludges, U019 (benzene)
and U220 (toluene),
generated at Emerald
Kalama Chemical, LLC in
Kalama, Washington at a
maximum annual rate of
3,500 cubic yards per
year. The sludge must be
disposed of in a
Subtitle D landfill
which is licensed,
permitted, or otherwise
authorized by a state to
accept the delisted
wastewater treatment
sludge. The exclusion
becomes effective as of
July 13, 2022.
1. Delisting Levels:
[[Page 41608]]
The constituent
concentrations in a
representative sample
of the waste must not
exceed the following
levels. Total
concentrations (mg/
kg): Cobalt-62,300;
Copper-463,000;
Nickel-402,000;
Benzene-276,000;
Formic Acid-145,000.
TCLP Concentrations
(mg/l in the waste
extract):
Acetaldehyde-8.65;
Barium-74.8; Copper-
19.0; Nickel-29.2;
Zinc-426;
Benzaldehyde-6.08;
Benzene-0.166;
Benzoic Acid-5,000;
Formic Acid-174;
Benzyl Alcohol-125;
Methanol-2,500;
Phenol-375; Toluene-
32.6. For the cobalt
concentration in an
extract of the waste,
the exclusion is
based on a
demonstration of
being within a cobalt
budget defined as
2000 yds\3\-mg/L. The
Petitioner must
calculate a running
total starting with
the effective date of
this exclusion, and
for each annual
period. The running
total shall be the
sum of ViCi from i=1
to n, where:
Vi = the volume of
each batch in cubic
yards (yd\3\)
Ci = the
concentration of
cobalt in a TCLP
extract of each
batch as per
Condition 3 of this
exclusion (mg/L)
n = number of
batches generated
per year
The Petitioner may
conduct analysis for
cobalt in an extract
of the IWBS biosolids
using the in-house
method documented in
``Cobalt Content In
Sludge Extract
Prepared According to
Toxicity
Characteristic
Leaching Procedure
(TCLP Cobalt),
Revision 1.0, 11/24/
2021 as placed in the
rulemaking docket.
The Petitioner may
monitor the quantity
of waste in each
batch on a weight
basis, converting to
volume using a
documented density of
0.67 tons/cubic yard.
Provided that the
cumulative cobalt
budget remains less
than the limit of
2000 yds\3\-mg/L each
batch will be
considered in
compliance with the
exclusion limit for
cobalt in an extract
of the waste.
However, any batch
with a cobalt
concentration greater
than 1.99 mg/l in a
TCLP extract of the
waste cannot be
managed under this
exclusion and must
remain subject to
RCRA Subtitle C
regulation. For the
first year following
the effective date of
this exclusion, the
Petitioner shall also
document the density
of IWBS for each
batch of IWBS using
ASTM Method ASTM
E1109-19 or other
equivalent method for
purposes of verifying
the 0.67 tons/cubic
yard density. In
addition, the
Petitioner shall, on
an on-going monthly
basis, obtain
analysis of one spit
aliquot of the TCLP
extract of IWBS
biosolids for cobalt
from an independent
laboratory accredited
by the Washington
State Department of
Ecology subject to
the provision of
Condition 2 below.
2. Reporting. Within 60
days of each anniversary
of the effective date of
this exclusion, or such
other time as the EPA
may approve in writing,
the Petitioner shall
provide a written report
to the EPA documenting
all data gathered
regarding extraction and
analysis of the extract
for cobalt pursuant to
the requirements of this
exclusion, including the
results of IWBS density
measurement (first year
report only) and the
independent laboratory
data for cobalt required
by Condition 1. This
report must be
accompanied by the
signed certification
language appearing at 40
CFR 270.1(d)(1). After
review of the density
data presented in this
report, the EPA may
provide the Petitioner
written approval to use
some other numerical
density than 0.67 tons/
cubic yard for purposes
of subsequent
implementation of cobalt
budget calculations
pursuant to Condition 1.
Following submission of
the first annual report,
the Petitioner may
request relief from the
spilt aliquot analysis
requirement in Condition
1. Upon receipt of
written approval of the
request from the EPA,
the Petitioner will be
relieved of the spilt
aliquot analysis
requirement in Condition
1.
[[Page 41609]]
3. Verification Testing:
To verify that the waste
does not exceed the
delisting concentrations
specified in Condition 1
(except for cobalt), the
Petitioner must collect
and analyze one
representative waste
sample of every group of
14 roll-off boxes of
wastewater treatment
sludge, with the sample
being obtained from the
10th box of each group
of 14. If this sampling
is expected to occur on
a weekend or a Federal
holiday, the Petitioner
may substitute sampling
of the 9th or 11th box
in each batch of 14
boxes, with sampling of
subsequent batches
resuming the original
schedule of sampling the
10th roll-off box of
each batch of 14 boxes.
The Petitioner may
manage the 10th through
14th box of each group
of 14 according to the
verification sampling
results of the previous
group of 14 boxes
pending receipt of
verification sample
results from the 10th
box of the current set
of boxes. The EPA notes
that the Washington
State Department of
Ecology does not
currently accredit any
laboratory in the state
of Washington for
analysis of
acetaldehyde,
benzaldehyde, or formic
acid in samples of solid
material. The EPA will
accept laboratory
analyses result for
acetaldehyde,
benzaldehyde and formic
acid from a laboratory
that otherwise holds
accreditations for all
other analytes. For
cobalt, sampling must
occur once per batch (as
defined by a single roll-
off box). All sampling
and analysis must be
conducted using methods
with appropriate
detection concentrations
and elements of quality
control. Sampling data
must be provided to the
EPA no later 60 days
following each
anniversary of the
effective date of this
delisting, or such later
date as the EPA may
agree to in writing. No
earlier than the first
anniversary of the
effective date of this
delisting, the
Petitioner may request
that the EPA approve
changes to the sampling
frequency under this
condition. Such a
request must include
data and analysis that
demonstrated that the
revised sampling
frequency will ensure
that all wastes subject
to this exclusion will
consistently satisfy the
delisting exclusion
criteria under Condition
1. The Petitioner must
conduct all verification
sampling according to a
written sampling plan
and associated quality
assurance project plan
which is approved in
advance by the EPA that
ensures analytical data
are suitable for their
intended use. The
Petitioner's annual
submission must also
include a certification
that all wastes
satisfying the delisting
concentrations in
Condition 1 have been
disposed of in a
Subtitle D landfill
which is licensed,
permitted, or otherwise
authorized by a state to
accept the delisted
wastewater treatment
sludge.
4. Changes in Operating
Conditions: The
Petitioner must notify
the EPA in writing if it
significantly changes
the manufacturing
process, the chemicals
used in the
manufacturing process,
the treatment process,
or the chemicals used in
the treatment process.
The Petitioner must
handle wastes generated
after the process change
as hazardous until it
has demonstrated that
the wastes continue to
meet the delisting
concentrations in
Condition 1,
demonstrated that no new
hazardous constituents
listed in Appendix VIII
of part 261 have been
introduced into the
manufacturing process or
waste treatment process,
and it has received
written approval from
the EPA that it may
continue to manage the
waste as non-hazardous.
5. Data Submittals: The
Petitioner must submit
the data obtained
through verification
testing or as required
by other conditions of
this rule to the
Director, Land,
Chemical, &
Redevelopment Division,
U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200
6th Avenue, Suite 155, M/
S 15-H04, Seattle,
Washington, 98101 or his
or her equivalent. The
annual verification data
and certification of
proper disposal must be
submitted within 60 days
after each anniversary
of the effective date of
this delisting
exclusion, or such later
date as the EPA may
agree to in writing. The
Petitioner must compile,
summarize, and maintain
on-site for a minimum of
five years, records of
analytical data required
by this rule, and
operating conditions
relevant to those data.
The Petitioner must make
these 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 Petitioner fails
to submit the required
data within the
specified time or
maintain the required
records on-site for the
specified time, the EPA
may, at its discretion,
consider such failure a
sufficient basis to
reopen the exclusion as
described in paragraph
5.
6. Reopener Language: (A)
If, any time after
disposal of the delisted
waste, the Petitioner
possesses or is
otherwise made aware of
any data relevant to the
delisted waste
indicating that any
constituent is at a
higher than the
specified delisting
concentration, then the
Petitioner must report
such data, in writing,
to the Director, Land,
Chemical, &
Redevelopment Division,
EPA Region 10 at the
address above, or his or
her equivalent, within
10 days of first
possessing or being made
aware of those data.
[[Page 41610]]
(B) Based on the
information described
in Condition 4 or
6(A) and any other
information received
from any source, the
EPA 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.
(C) If the EPA
determines that the
reported information
does require Agency
action, the EPA will
notify the Petitioner
in writing of the
actions it 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 Petitioner with
an opportunity to
present information
as to why the
proposed Agency
action is not
necessary or to
suggest an
alternative action.
The Petitioner shall
have 30 days from the
date of the EPA's
notice to present the
information.
(D) If after 30 days
the Petitioner
presents no further
information or after
a review of any
submitted
information, the EPA
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
EPA's determination
shall become
effective immediately
unless the EPA
provides otherwise.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-15009 Filed 7-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P