5110 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 19 / Friday, January 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

6We also disagree with your assertion that the 

Agency improperly relied on the use of the Toxicity 

Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The 

TCLP is a duly promulgated regulation of EPA and 

has not been challenged within the appropriate 

statutory time period for challenging regulations. 

EPA’s use of the TCLP in this regulation is entirely 

appropriate. 

evidence and arguments it has already 

carefully considered. In our view, the notice 

and comment issues you have raised are 

actually discussions of the merits of the 

agency’s decision with which you disagree. 

See 73 FR 61–67.6 In fact, you do not point 

to any information which EPA lacks to make 

its decision. 

Finally, EPA disagrees with your legal 

argument that the final rule does not comport 

with RCRA section 3004(q). (Petition at pg. 

13–15) Because EPA is providing an 

exclusion from the definition of solid waste 

for the hazardous secondary materials fed to 

gasifiers subject to this rule, EPA does not 

implicate the provisions of section 3004(q) of 

RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6924(q), which requires that 

the hazardous secondary material first be a 

solid waste. 

As previously stated, a notice will be 

published in the Federal Register 

announcing the agency’s tentative decision to 

deny your petition for reconsideration and 

will provide the public a 45 day period to 

comment After considering any comments 

received, the agency will make a final 

decision on the merits of your petition. 

If you should have any questions, you may 

contact Alan Carpien, EPA’s Office of 

General Counsel at (202) 564–5507. 

Sincerely, 

Mathy Stanislaus 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response 

Dated: January 19, 2011. 

Mathy Stanislaus, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1906 Filed 1–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2010–1052; SW–FRL– 

9259–3] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Proposed Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a 

petition submitted by Gulf West 

Landfill, TX, LP. (Gulf West) to exclude 

(or delist) the landfill leachate generated 

by Gulf West in Anahuac, Texas from 

the lists of hazardous wastes. EPA used 

the Delisting Risk Assessment Software 

(DRAS) Version 3.0 in the evaluation of 

the impact of the petitioned waste on 

human health and the environment. 

DATES: We will accept comments until 

February 28, 2011. We will stamp 

comments received after the close of the 

comment period as late. These late 

comments may or may not be 

considered in formulating a final 

decision. Your requests for a hearing 

must reach EPA by February 14, 2011. 

The request must contain the 

information prescribed in 40 CFR 

260.20(d) (hereinafter all CFR cites refer 

to 40 CFR unless otherwise stated). 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

RCRA- 2010–1052 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: peace.michelle@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Michelle Peace, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 

6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Michelle Peace, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 

6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–RCRA–2010– 

1052. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket. All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials may be 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in electronic or 

hard copy at the Environmental 

Protection Agency, RCRA Branch, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202. The 

hard copy RCRA regulatory docket for 

this proposed rule, EPA–R06–RCRA– 

2010–1052, is available for viewing from 

8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The 

public may copy material from any 

regulatory docket at no cost for the first 

100 pages, and at fifteen cents per page 

for additional copies. EPA requests that 

you contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The 

interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the office at least 24 

hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information regarding the 

Republic Services, Inc./BFI Gulf West 

Landfill petition, contact Michelle Peace 

at 214–665–7430 or by e-mail at 

peace.michelle@epa.gov. 

Your requests for a hearing must 

reach EPA by February 14, 2011. The 

request must contain the information 

described in § 260.20(d). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Gulf West 

submitted a petition under 40 CFR 

260.20 and 260.22(a). Section 260.20 

allows any person to petition the 

Administrator to modify or revoke any 

provision of parts 260 through 266, 268 

and 273. Section 260.22(a) specifically 

provides generators the opportunity to 

petition the Administrator to exclude a 

waste on a ‘‘generator specific’’ basis 

from the hazardous waste lists. 

EPA bases its proposed decision to 

grant the petition on an evaluation of 

waste-specific information provided by 

the petitioner. This decision, if 

finalized, would conditionally exclude 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 19 / Friday, January 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 5111 

the petitioned waste from the 

requirements of hazardous waste 

regulations under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

If finalized, EPA would conclude that 

Gulf West’s petitioned waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original 

listing criteria. EPA would also 

conclude that Gulf West’s process 

minimizes short-term and long-term 

threats from the petitioned waste to 

human health and the environment. 

Table of Contents 

The information in this section is 

organized as follows: 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA proposing? 

B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this 

delisting? 

C. How will Gulf West manage the waste, 

if it is delisted? 

D. When would the proposed delisting 

exclusion be finalized? 

E. How would this action affect states? 

II. Background 

A. What is the history of the delisting 

program? 

B. What is a delisting petition, and what 

does it require of a petitioner? 

C. What factors must EPA consider in 

deciding whether to grant a delisting 

petition? 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What wastes did Gulf West petition EPA 

to delist? 

B. Who is Gulf West and what process does 

it use to generate the petitioned waste? 

C. How did Gulf West sample and analyze 

the data in this petition? 

D. What were the results of Gulf West’s 

sample analysis? 

E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of 

delisting this waste? 

F. What did EPA conclude about Gulf 

West’s analysis? 

G. What other factors did EPA consider in 

its evaluation? 

H. What is EPA’s evaluation of this 

delisting petition? 

IV. Next Steps 

A. With what conditions must the 

petitioner comply? 

B. What happens if Gulf West violates the 

terms and conditions? 

V. Public Comments 

A. How may I as an interested party submit 

comments? 

B. How may I review the docket or obtain 

copies of the proposed exclusions? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

delisting petition submitted by Gulf 

West to have the leachate from its 

landfill excluded, or delisted from the 

definition of a hazardous waste. The 

leachate derived from the management 

of several F- and K- waste codes. These 

wastes codes are F019, F039, K017, 

K019, and K020. 

B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this 

delisting? 

Gulf West’s petition requests an 

exclusion from the F019, F039, K017, 

K019, and K020 waste listings pursuant 

to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. Gulf West 

does not believe that the petitioned 

waste meets the criteria for which EPA 

listed it. Gulf West 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)–(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 

§ 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(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 

Gulf West is based on the information 

submitted in support of this rule, 

including descriptions of the wastes and 

analytical data from the Anahuac, Texas 

facility. 

C. How will Gulf West manage the waste 

if it is delisted? 

If the leachate is delisted, Gulf West 

will dispose of the leachate at a publicly 

owned treatment works or at an 

industrial waste disposal facility. 

D. When would the proposed delisting 

exclusion be finalized? 

RCRA section 3001(f) specifically 

requires EPA to provide a notice and an 

opportunity for comment before 

granting or denying a final exclusion. 

Thus, EPA will not grant the exclusion 

until it addresses all timely public 

comments (including those at public 

hearings, if any) on this proposal. 

RCRA section 3010(b)(1) at 42 USCA 

6930(b)(1), allows rules to become 

effective in less than six months when 

the regulated facility does not need the 

six-month period to come into 

compliance. That is the case here, 

because this rule, if finalized, would 

reduce the existing requirements for 

persons generating hazardous wastes. 

EPA believes that this exclusion 

should be effective immediately upon 

final publication because a six-month 

deadline is not necessary to achieve the 

purpose of section 3010(b), and a later 

effective date would impose 

unnecessary hardship and expense on 

this petitioner. These reasons also 

provide good cause for making this rule 

effective immediately, upon final 

publication, under the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

E. How would this action affect the 

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 states 

which have received authorization from 

EPA to make their own delisting 

decisions. 

EPA allows states to impose their own 

non-RCRA regulatory requirements that 

are more stringent than EPA’s, under 

section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929. 

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, EPA urges 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, Oklahoma, 

Georgia, Illinois) to administer a RCRA 

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 unless that state makes the rule 

part of its authorized program. If Gulf 

West transports the petitioned waste to 

or manages the waste in any state with 

delisting authorization, Gulf West must 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

5112 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 19 / Friday, January 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

obtain delisting authorization from that 

state before it can manage the waste as 

non-hazardous in the state. 

II. Background 

A. What is the history of the delisting 

program? 

EPA published an amended list of 

hazardous wastes from non-specific and 

specific sources on January 16, 1981, as 

part of its final and interim final 

regulations implementing section 3001 

of RCRA. EPA has amended this list 

several times and published it in 40 CFR 

261.31 and 261.32. 

EPA lists these wastes as hazardous 

because: (1) The wastes typically and 

frequently exhibit one or more of the 

characteristics of hazardous wastes 

identified in Subpart C of Part 261 (that 

is, ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, 

and toxicity), (2) the wastes meet the 

criteria for listing contained in 

§ 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3), or (3) the wastes 

are mixed with or derived from the 

treatment, storage or disposal of such 

characteristic and listed wastes and 

which therefore become hazardous 

under § 261.3(a)(2)(iv) or (c)(2)(i), 

known as the ‘‘mixture’’ or ‘‘derivedfrom’’ rules, respectively. 

Individual waste streams may vary, 

however, depending on raw materials, 

industrial processes, and other factors. 

Thus, while a waste described in these 

regulations or resulting from the 

operation of the mixture or derived-from 

rules generally is hazardous, a specific 

waste from an individual facility may 

not be hazardous. 

For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 

260.22 provide an exclusion procedure, 

called delisting, which allows persons 

to prove that EPA should not regulate a 

specific waste from a particular 

generating facility as a hazardous waste. 

B. What is a delisting petition, and what 

does it require of a petitioner? 

A delisting petition is a request from 

a facility to EPA or an authorized state 

to exclude wastes from the list of 

hazardous wastes. The facility petitions 

EPA because it does not consider the 

wastes hazardous under RCRA 

regulations. 

In a delisting petition, the petitioner 

must show that wastes generated at a 

particular facility do not meet any of the 

criteria for which the waste was listed. 

The criteria for which EPA lists a waste 

are in part 261 and further explained in 

the background documents for the listed 

waste. 

In addition, under 40 CFR 260.22, a 

petitioner must prove that the waste 

does not exhibit any of the hazardous 

waste characteristics (that is, 

ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and 

toxicity) and present sufficient 

information for EPA to decide whether 

factors other than those for which the 

waste was listed warrant retaining it as 

a hazardous waste. (See part 261 and the 

background documents for the listed 

waste.) 

Generators remain obligated under 

RCRA to confirm whether their waste 

remains non-hazardous based on the 

hazardous waste characteristics even if 

EPA has ‘‘delisted’’ the waste. 

C. What factors must EPA consider in 

deciding whether to grant a delisting 

petition? 

Besides considering the criteria in 40 

CFR 260.22(a) and § 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 

U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background 

documents for the listed wastes, EPA 

must consider any factors (including 

additional constituents) other than those 

for which EPA listed the waste, if a 

reasonable basis exists that these 

additional factors could cause the waste 

to be hazardous. 

EPA must also consider as hazardous 

waste mixtures containing listed 

hazardous wastes and wastes derived 

from treating, storing, or disposing of 

listed hazardous waste. See 

§ 261.3(a)(2)(iii and iv) and (c)(2)(i), 

called the ‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derived-from’’ 

rules, respectively. These wastes are 

also eligible for exclusion and remain 

hazardous wastes until excluded. See 66 

FR 27266 (May 16, 2001). 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What waste did Gulf West petition 

EPA to delist? 

In December 2009, Gulf West 

petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists 

of hazardous wastes contained in 

§§ 261.31 and 261.32, landfill leachate 

(F019, F039, K017, K019, and K020) 

generated from its facility located in 

Anahuac, Texas. The waste falls under 

the classification of listed waste 

pursuant to §§ 261.31 and 261.32. 

Specifically, in its petition, Gulf West 

requested that EPA grant a standard 

exclusion for 6,436 cubic yards (150,000 

gallons) per year of the landfill leachate. 

B. Who is Gulf West and what process 

does it use to generate the petitioned 

waste? 

Gulf West Landfill is a disposal 

facility. There are no products 

manufactured at the site. The Landfill 

was built to RCRA construction 

standards for hazardous waste disposal. 

However, the site since 1993 has not 

accepted hazardous waste and only 

accepts nonhazardous waste for 

disposal only. In separate instances 

Shell Oil and BAE Systems Inc. sent 

waste materials to the facility which 

were subsequently delisted but at the 

time of disposal at Gulf West Landfill 

were still considered hazardous wastes. 

The leachate generated from the landfill 

where these materials were disposed 

have been treated as F039 hazardous 

wastes which carry F019 and K017, 

K019, K020 waste codes as a result of 

the mixture and derived from rules. The 

petitioned waste is managed by 

collecting the liquids which have 

percolated through the land disposed 

wastes into the leachate collection 

system and conveying the leachate to 

storage tanks that are emptied into 

trucks for off-site disposal. 

C. How did Gulf West sample and 

analyze the data in this petition? 

To support its petition, Gulf West 

submitted: 

(1) Historical information on waste 

generation and management practices; 

and 

(2) Analytical results from five 

samples for total concentrations of 

compounds of concern (COC)s. 

D. What were the results of Gulf West’s 

analyses? 

EPA believes that the descriptions of 

the Gulf West analytical 

characterization provide a reasonable 

basis to grant Gulf West’s petition for an 

exclusion of the landfill leachate. EPA 

believes the data submitted in support 

of the petition show the landfill leachate 

is non-hazardous. Analytical data for 

the landfill leachate samples were used 

in the DRAS to develop delisting levels. 

The data summaries for COCs are 

presented in Table I. EPA has reviewed 

the sampling procedures used by Gulf 

West and has determined that it satisfies 

EPA criteria for collecting representative 

samples of the variations in constituent 

concentrations in the landfill leachate. 

In addition, the data submitted in 

support of the petition show that 

constituents in Gulf West’s waste are 

presently below health-based levels 

used in the delisting decision-making. 

EPA believes that Gulf West has 

successfully demonstrated that the 

landfill leachate is non-hazardous. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 19 / Friday, January 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 5113 

TABLE 1—ANALYTICAL RESULTS/MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATION

[Landfill Leachate Republic Services, Inc./BFI Gulf West Landfill, Anahuac, Texas] 

Constituent 

Maximum 

TCLP 

(mg/l) 

Maximum allowable TCLP 

delisting level 

(mg/L) 

Acetone (2-propanone) ............................................................................................................................................... 4.10E+00 1.27E+02 

Antimony ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1.20E–02 5.68E–02 

Arsenic ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2.70E–01 3.37E–01 

Barium ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.80E+00 1.16E+01 

Benzene ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1.20E–02 1.88E–02 

Beryllium ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1.70E–04 1.03E+00 

Cadmium ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3.50E–04 5.10E–02 

Carbon disulfide .......................................................................................................................................................... 5.20E–02 1.29E+01 

Chromium ................................................................................................................................................................... 2.40E–02 5.00E+00 

Cobalt .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.40E–02 3.18E–01 

Copper ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1.10E–02 2.21E+01 

Cresol m- .................................................................................................................................................................... 1.80E–01 7.06E+00 

Cresol o- ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5.30E+00 7.06E+00 

Cresol p- ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1.40E–01 7.06E–01 

DDT p,p’- .................................................................................................................................................................... 2.30E–05 9.72E+25 

Dioxane 1,4- ............................................................................................................................................................... 9.10E–01 2.39E+00 

Endosulfan (Endosulfan I and II, mixture) .................................................................................................................. 3.90E–04 1.55E+00 

Endrin .......................................................................................................................................................................... 6.80E–05 2.0E–02 

Ethyl ether ................................................................................................................................................................... 4.30E–03 2.25E+01 

Ethylbenzene .............................................................................................................................................................. 1.10E–02 3.21E+00 

HCH, (Hexachlorocyclohexane ) (Lindane) gamma- ................................................................................................. 1.50E–04 4.00E–01 

HCH, beta- (Hexachlorocyclohexane beta-BHC) ....................................................................................................... 3.00E–05 2.26E–03 

Heptachlor ................................................................................................................................................................... 3.40E–04 8.0 E–03 

Heptachlor epoxide ..................................................................................................................................................... 8.90E–05 8.0 E–03 

Lead ............................................................................................................................................................................ 6.30E–03 2.57E+00 

Mercury (Total) ........................................................................................................................................................... 8.10E–05 1.25E–02 

Methoxychlor ............................................................................................................................................................... 3.40E–04 1.0E+01 

Methyl ethyl ketone ..................................................................................................................................................... 5.40E–01 8.47E+01 

Methyl isobutyl ketone ................................................................................................................................................ 6.00E–01 1.13E+01 

Nickel .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2.70E–01 5.74E+00 

Selenium ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1.70E–02 4.47E–01 

Silver ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1.40E–04 1.71E+00 

Thallium ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4.08E–02 4.49 E–02 

Tin ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6.50E–03 5.43 E+04 

Toluene ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3.70E–02 3.93E+00 

Trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid 2-(2,4,5- (Silvex) ..................................................................................................... 7.00E–03 1.88E–01 

Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5- ............................................................................................................................. 1.80E–02 1.41E+00 

Vanadium .................................................................................................................................................................... 1.20E–01 4.88E+00 

Xylenes (total) ............................................................................................................................................................. 1.70E–02 2.90E+00 

Zinc ............................................................................................................................................................................. 8.10E–02 7.77E+01 

Notes: These levels represent the highest constituent concentration found in any one sample and do not necessarily represent the specific 

level found in one sample. 

E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of 

delisting the waste? 

For this delisting determination, EPA 

used such information gathered to 

identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., 

groundwater, surface water, air) for 

hazardous constituents present in the 

petitioned waste. EPA determined that 

disposal in a surface impoundment is 

the most reasonable, worst-case disposal 

scenario for Gulf West’s petitioned 

waste. EPA applied the Delisting Risk 

Assessment Software (DRAS) described 

in 65 FR 58015 (September 27, 2000) 

and 65 FR 75637 (December 4, 2000), to 

predict the maximum allowable 

concentrations of hazardous 

constituents that may be released from 

the petitioned waste after disposal and 

determined the potential impact of the 

disposal of Gulf West’s petitioned waste 

on human health and the environment. 

A copy of this software can be found on 

the world wide Web at http:// 

www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/wptdiv/ 

hazardous/delisting/dras-software.html. 

In assessing potential risks to 

groundwater, EPA used the maximum 

waste volumes and the maximum 

reported extract concentrations as 

inputs to the DRAS program to estimate 

the constituent concentrations in the 

groundwater at a hypothetical receptor 

well down gradient from the disposal 

site. Using the risk level (carcinogenic 

risk of 10¥5 and non-cancer hazard 

index of 1.0), the DRAS program can 

back-calculate the acceptable receptor 

well concentrations (referred to as 

compliance-point concentrations) using 

standard risk assessment algorithms and 

EPA health-based numbers. Using the 

maximum compliance-point 

concentrations and EPA’s Composite 

Model for Leachate Migration with 

Transformation Products (EPACMTP) 

fate and transport modeling factors, the 

DRAS further back-calculates the 

maximum permissible waste constituent 

concentrations not expected to exceed 

the compliance-point concentrations in 

groundwater. 

EPA believes that the EPACMTP fate 

and transport model represents a 

reasonable worst-case scenario for 

possible groundwater contamination 

resulting from disposal of the petitioned 

waste in a surface impoundment, and 

that a reasonable worst-case scenario is 

appropriate when evaluating whether a 

waste should be relieved of the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

5114 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 19 / Friday, January 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

protective management constraints of 

RCRA Subtitle C. The use of some 

reasonable worst-case scenarios resulted 

in conservative values for the 

compliance-point concentrations and 

ensures that the waste, once removed 

from hazardous waste regulation, will 

not pose a significant threat to human 

health or the environment. 

The DRAS also uses the maximum 

estimated waste volumes and the 

maximum reported total concentrations 

to predict possible risks associated with 

releases of waste constituents through 

surface pathways (e.g., volatilization 

from the impoundment). As in the 

above groundwater analyses, the DRAS 

uses the risk level, the health-based data 

and standard risk assessment and 

exposure algorithms to predict 

maximum compliance-point 

concentrations of waste constituents at 

a hypothetical point of exposure. Using 

fate and transport equations, the DRAS 

uses the maximum compliance-point 

concentrations and back-calculates the 

maximum allowable waste constituent 

concentrations (or ‘‘delisting levels’’). 

In most cases, because a delisted 

waste is no longer subject to hazardous 

waste control, EPA is generally unable 

to predict, and does not presently 

control, how a petitioner will manage a 

waste after delisting. Therefore, EPA 

currently believes that it is 

inappropriate to consider extensive sitespecific factors when applying the fate 

and transport model. EPA does control 

the type of unit where the waste is 

disposed. The waste must be disposed 

in the type of unit the fate and transport 

model evaluates. 

The DRAS results which calculate the 

maximum allowable concentration of 

chemical constituents in the waste are 

presented in Table I. Based on the 

comparison of the DRAS and TCLP 

Analyses results found in Table I, the 

petitioned waste should be delisted 

because no constituents of concern 

tested are likely to be present or formed 

as reaction products or by-products in 

Gulf West waste. 

F. What did EPA conclude about Gulf 

West’s waste analysis? 

EPA concluded, after reviewing Gulf 

West’s processes that no other 

hazardous constituents of concern, other 

than those for which tested, are likely to 

be present or formed as reaction 

products or by-products in the waste. In 

addition, on the basis of explanations 

and analytical data provided by Gulf 

West, pursuant to § 260.22, EPA 

concludes that the petitioned waste 

does not exhibit any of the 

characteristics of ignitability, 

corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity. See 

§§ 261.21, 261.22 and 261.23, 

respectively. 

G. What other factors did EPA consider 

in its evaluation? 

During the evaluation of Gulf West’s 

petition, EPA also considered the 

potential impact of the petitioned waste 

via non-groundwater routes (i.e., air 

emission and surface runoff). With 

regard to airborne dispersion in 

particular, EPA believes that exposure 

to airborne contaminants from Gulf 

West’s petitioned waste is unlikely. 

Therefore, no appreciable air releases 

are likely from Gulf West’s waste under 

any likely disposal conditions. EPA 

evaluated the potential hazards 

resulting from the unlikely scenario of 

airborne exposure to hazardous 

constituents released from Gulf West’s 

waste in an open impoundment. The 

results of this worst-case analysis 

indicated that there is no substantial 

present or potential hazard to human 

health and the environment from 

airborne exposure to constituents from 

Gulf West’s landfill leachate. 

H. What is EPA’s evaluation of this 

delisting petition? 

The descriptions of Gulf West’s 

hazardous waste process and analytical 

characterization provide a reasonable 

basis for EPA to grant the exclusion. The 

data submitted in support of the petition 

show that constituents in the waste are 

below the leachable concentrations (see 

Table I). EPA believes that Gulf West’s 

landfill leachate will not impose any 

threat to human health and the 

environment. 

Thus, EPA believes Gulf West should 

be granted an exclusion for the landfill 

leachate. EPA believes the data 

submitted in support of the petition 

show Gulf West’s landfill leachate is 

non-hazardous. The data submitted in 

support of the petition show that 

constituents in Gulf West’s waste are 

presently below the compliance point 

concentrations used in the delisting 

decision and would not pose a 

substantial hazard to the environment. 

EPA believes that Gulf West has 

successfully demonstrated that the 

landfill leachate is non-hazardous. 

EPA therefore, proposes to grant an 

exclusion to Gulf West in Anahuac, 

Texas, for the landfill leachate described 

in its petition. EPA’s decision to 

exclude this waste is based on 

descriptions of the treatment activities 

associated with the petitioned waste 

and characterization of the landfill 

leachate. 

If EPA finalizes the proposed rule, 

EPA will no longer regulate the 

petitioned waste under Parts 262 

through 268 and the permitting 

standards of part 270. 

IV. Next Steps 

A. With what conditions must the 

petitioner comply? 

The petitioner, Gulf West, must 

comply with the requirements in 40 

CFR part 261, Appendix IX, Table 1. 

The text below gives the rationale and 

details of those requirements. 

(1) Delisting Levels: 

This paragraph provides the levels of 

constituents for which Gulf West must 

test the landfill leachate, below which 

these wastes would be considered nonhazardous. EPA selected the set of 

inorganic and organic constituents 

specified in paragraph (1) of 40 CFR part 

261, Appendix IX, Table 1, (the 

exclusion language) based on 

information in the petition. EPA 

compiled the inorganic and organic 

constituents list from the composition of 

the waste, descriptions of Gulf West’s 

treatment process, previous test data 

provided for the waste, and the 

respective health-based levels used in 

delisting decision-making. These 

delisting levels correspond to the 

allowable levels measured in the TCLP 

concentrations. 

(2) Waste Holding and Handling: 

The purpose of this paragraph is to 

ensure that Gulf West manages and 

disposes of any landfill leachate that 

contains hazardous levels of inorganic 

and organic constituents according to 

Subtitle C of RCRA. Managing the 

landfill leachate as a hazardous waste 

until initial verification testing is 

performed will protect against improper 

handling of hazardous material. If EPA 

determines that the data collected under 

this paragraph do not support the data 

provided for in the petition, the 

exclusion will not cover the petitioned 

waste. The exclusion is effective upon 

publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER but 

the disposal as non-hazardous cannot 

begin until the verification sampling is 

completed. 

(3) Verification Testing Requirements: 

Gulf West must complete a rigorous 

verification testing program on the 

landfill leachate to assure that the 

sludge does not exceed the maximum 

levels specified in paragraph (1) of the 

exclusion language. This verification 

program operates on two levels. The 

first part of the verification testing 

program consists of testing the landfill 

leachate for specified indicator 

parameters as per paragraph (1) of the 

exclusion language. 

If EPA determines that the data 

collected under this paragraph do not 

support the data provided for the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 19 / Friday, January 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 5115 

petition, the exclusion will not cover 

the generated wastes. If the data from 

the initial verification testing program 

demonstrate that the leachate meets the 

delisting levels, Gulf West may request 

quarterly testing. EPA will notify Gulf 

West in writing, if and when it may 

replace the testing conditions in 

paragraph (3)(A) with the testing 

conditions in (3)(B) of the exclusion 

language. 

The second part of the verification 

testing program is the quarterly testing 

of representative samples of landfill 

leachate for all constituents specified in 

paragraph (1) of the exclusion language. 

EPA believes that the concentrations of 

the constituents of concern in the 

landfill leachate may vary over time. 

Consequently, this program will ensure 

that the leachate is evaluated in terms 

of variation in constituent 

concentrations in the waste over time. 

The proposed subsequent testing 

would verify that the constituent 

concentrations of the landfill leachate 

do not exhibit unacceptable temporal 

and spatial levels of toxic constituents. 

EPA is proposing to require Gulf West 

to analyze representative samples of the 

landfill leachate quarterly during the 

first year of waste generation. Gulf West 

would begin quarterly sampling 60 days 

after the final exclusion as described in 

paragraph (3)(B) of the exclusion 

language. 

EPA, per paragraph 3(C) of the 

exclusion language, is proposing to end 

the subsequent testing conditions after 

the first year, if Gulf West has 

demonstrated that the waste 

consistently meets the delisting levels. 

To confirm that the characteristics of the 

waste do not change significantly over 

time, Gulf West must continue to 

analyze a representative sample of the 

waste on an annual basis. Annual 

testing requires analyzing the full list of 

components in paragraph (1) of the 

exclusion language. If operating 

conditions change as described in 

paragraph (4) of the exclusion language; 

Gulf West must reinstate all testing in 

paragraph (1) of the exclusion language. 

Gulf West must prove through a new 

demonstration that their waste meets 

the conditions of the exclusion. If the 

annual testing of the waste does not 

meet the delisting requirements in 

paragraph (1), Gulf West must notify 

EPA according to the requirements in 

paragraph (6) of the exclusion language. 

The facility must provide sampling 

results that support the rationale that 

the delisting exclusion should not be 

withdrawn. 

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: 

Paragraph (4) of the exclusion 

language would allow Gulf West the 

flexibility of modifying its processes (for 

example, changes in equipment or 

change in operating conditions). 

However, Gulf West must prove the 

effectiveness of the modified process 

and request approval from EPA. Gulf 

West must manage wastes generated 

during the new process demonstration 

as hazardous waste until it has obtained 

written approval and paragraph (3) of 

the exclusion language is satisfied. 

(5) Data Submittals: 

To provide appropriate 

documentation that Gulf West’s landfill 

leachate is meeting the delisting levels, 

Gulf West must compile, summarize, 

and keep delisting records on-site for a 

minimum of five years. It should keep 

all analytical data obtained through 

paragraph (3) of the exclusion language 

including quality control information 

for five years. Paragraph (5) of the 

exclusion language requires that Gulf 

West furnish these data upon request for 

inspection by any employee or 

representative of EPA or the State of 

Texas. 

If the proposed exclusion is made 

final, it will apply only to 6,436 cubic 

yards (per year of landfill leachate 

generated at the Gulf West after 

successful verification testing. EPA 

would require Gulf West to file a new 

delisting petition under any of the 

following circumstances: 

(a) If it significantly alters the process 

or treatment system except as described 

in paragraph (4) of the exclusion 

language; 

(b) If it significantly changes from the 

current process(es) described in their 

petition; or 

(c) If it makes any changes that could 

affect the composition or type of waste 

generated. 

Gulf West must manage waste 

volumes greater than 6,436 cubic yards 

per year of landfill leachate as 

hazardous until EPA grants a new 

exclusion. 

When this exclusion becomes final, 

Gulf West’s management of the wastes 

covered by this petition would be 

relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction, the 

landfill leachate from Gulf West will be 

treated and disposed at the Anahuac 

Wastewater Treatment Plant in 

Anahuac, TX or at the Newpark 

Industrial Facility in Winnie, TX. 

(6) Reopener: 

The purpose of paragraph (6) of the 

exclusion language is to require Gulf 

West to disclose new or different 

information related to a condition at the 

facility or disposal of the waste, if it is 

pertinent to the delisting. Gulf West 

must also use this procedure, if the 

waste sample in the annual testing fails 

to meet the levels found in paragraph 

(1). This provision will allow EPA to 

reevaluate the exclusion, if a source 

provides new or additional information 

to EPA. EPA will evaluate the 

information on which EPA based the 

decision to see if it is still correct, or if 

circumstances have changed so that the 

information is no longer correct or 

would cause EPA to deny the petition, 

if presented. This provision expressly 

requires Gulf West to report differing 

site conditions or assumptions used in 

the petition in addition to failure to 

meet the annual testing conditions 

within 10 days of discovery. If EPA 

discovers such information itself or 

from a third party, it can act on it as 

appropriate. The language being 

proposed is similar to those provisions 

found in RCRA regulations governing 

no-migration petitions at § 268.6. 

EPA believes that it has the authority 

under RCRA and the Administrative 

Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 

(1978) et seq., to reopen a delisting 

decision. EPA may reopen a delisting 

decision when it receives new 

information that calls into question the 

assumptions underlying the delisting. 

EPA believes a clear statement of its 

authority in delistings is merited in light 

of EPA’s experience. See Reynolds 

Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 and 62 

FR 63458 where the delisted waste 

leached at greater concentrations in the 

environment than the concentrations 

predicted when conducting the TCLP, 

thus leading EPA to repeal the delisting. 

If an immediate threat to human health 

and the environment presents itself, 

EPA will continue to address these 

situations on a case by case basis. Where 

necessary, EPA will make a good cause 

finding to justify emergency rulemaking. 

See APA Section 553(b). 

(7) Notification Requirements: 

In order to adequately track wastes 

that have been delisted, EPA is 

requiring that Gulf West provide a onetime notification to any state regulatory 

agency through which or to which the 

delisted waste is being carried. Gulf 

West must provide this notification 60 

days before commencing this activity. 

B. What happens if Gulf West violates 

the terms and conditions? 

If Gulf West violates the terms and 

conditions established in the exclusion, 

EPA will start procedures to withdraw 

the exclusion. Where there is an 

immediate threat to human health and 

the environment, EPA will evaluate the 

need for enforcement activities on a 

case-by-case basis. EPA expects Gulf 

West to conduct the appropriate waste 

analysis and comply with the criteria 

explained above in paragraph (1) of the 

exclusion. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

5116 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 19 / Friday, January 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

V. Public Comments 

A. How can I as an interested party 

submit comments? 

EPA is requesting public comments 

on this proposed decision. Please send 

three copies of your comments. Send 

two copies to Ben Banipal, Section 

Chief of the Corrective Action and 

Waste Minimization Section (6PD–C), 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Dallas, Texas 75202. Identify your 

comments at the top with this regulatory 

docket number: ‘‘EPA–R6–RCRA–2010– 

1052 Republic Services, Inc./BFI Gulf 

West Landfill.’’ You may submit your 

comments electronically to Michelle 

Peace at peace.michelle@epa.gov. 

You should submit requests for a 

hearing to Ben Banipal, Section Chief of 

the Corrective Action and Waste 

Minimization Section (6PD–C), 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Dallas, Texas 75202. 

B. How may I review the docket or 

obtain copies of the proposed 

exclusion? 

You may review the RCRA regulatory 

docket for this proposed rule at the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 

Texas 75202. It is available for viewing 

in EPA Freedom of Information Act 

Review Room from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. Call (214) 665–6444 

for appointments. The public may copy 

material from any regulatory docket at 

no cost for the first 100 pages, and at 

fifteen cents per page for additional 

copies. You may also request the 

electronic files of the docket which do 

not appear on regulations.gov. 

VI. 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 

proposed 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. Similarly, because this rule 

will affect only a particular facility, this 

proposed 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 the DRAS program, which 

considers health and safety risks to 

infants and 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. 

Lists 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: January 18, 2011. 

Carl E. Edlund, 

Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, Region 6. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is proposed 

to be 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 Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix IX 

to Part 261 add the waste stream ‘‘Gulf 

West Landfill’’ in alphabetical order by 

facility to read as follows: 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Waste 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 19 / Friday, January 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 5117 

TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

Gulf West Landfill ..... Anahuac, TX ........... Landfill Leachate (EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers F019, F039, K017, K019, K020.) generated at 

a maximum rate of 1,300,000 gallons (6,436 cubic yards) per calendar year after [insert publication date of the final rule]. 

For the exclusion to be valid, Gulf West must implement a verification testing program for each of 

the waste streams that meets the following Paragraphs: 

(1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations for those constituents must not exceed the maximum allowable concentrations in mg/l specified in this paragraph. 

Landfill Leachate. Leachable Concentrations (mg/l): Antimony—0.0568; Acetone—127; Arsenic— 

0.337; Barium—11.6; Benzene—0.0188; Beryllium—1.03; Cadmium—0.051; Chromium—5.0; 

Cobalt—0.318; Copper—22.1; m-Cresol—7.06; o-Cresol- 7.06; p-Cresol—0.706; p,p- DDT 

-0.0103; 1,4- Dioxane—2.39; Endosulfan- 1.55; Endrin—0.02; Ethyl ether- 22.5; 

Ethylbenzene—3.21; beta BHC- 0.0026; Heptachlor—0.008; Heptachlor epoxide- 0.008; Lead2.57; Lindane -0.4; Mercury- 0.0125; methoxychlor- 10; methyl ethyl ketone- 84.7; methyl isobutyl ketone- 11.3; nickel- 5.74; selenium-0.447; silver-1.71; Thallium- 0.0449; tin-54,300; toluene-3.93; Silex-0.188; 2,4,5- trichlorophenoxyacetic acid-1.41; vanadium- 4.88; xylenes (total) 

-2.90; zinc-77.7. 

(2) Waste Holding and Handling: 

(A) Waste classification as non-hazardous can not begin until compliance with the limits set in 

paragraph (1) for the Landfill Leachate has occurred for four consecutive quarterly sampling 

events. 

(B) If constituent levels in any annual sample and retest sample taken by Gulf West exceed any 

of the delisting levels set in paragraph (1) for the Landfill Leachate, Gulf West must do the following: 

(i) notify EPA in accordance with paragraph (6) and 

(ii) manage and dispose the Landfill Leachate as hazardous waste generated under Subtitle C of 

RCRA. 

(3) Testing Requirements: Upon this exclusion becoming final, Gulf West must perform analytical 

testing by sampling and analyzing the Landfill Leachate as follows: 

(A) Initial Verification Testing: 

(i) Collect four representative composite samples of the Landfill Leachate at quarterly intervals 

after EPA grants the final exclusion. The first composite sample of each waste stream may be 

taken at any time after EPA grants the final approval. Sampling must 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) indicates that the Landfill Leachate must 

continue to be disposed as hazardous waste in accordance with the applicable hazardous 

waste requirements until such time that four consecutive quarterly samples indicate compliance 

with delisting levels listed in paragraph (1). 

(iii) Within sixty (60) days after taking its last quarterly sample, Gulf West will report its analytical 

test data to EPA. If levels of constituents measured in the samples of the Landfill Leachate do 

not exceed the levels set forth in paragraph (1) of this exclusion for four consecutive quarters, 

Gulf West can manage and dispose the non-hazardous Landfill Leachate according to all applicable solid waste regulations. 

(B) Annual Testing: 

(i) If Gulf West completes the quarterly testing specified in paragraph (3) above and no sample 

contains a constituent at a level which exceeds the limits set forth in paragraph (1), Gulf West 

must begin annual testing as follows: Gulf West must test a representative composite sample of 

the Landfill Leachate for all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at least once per calendar year. 

If any measured constituent concentration exceeds the delisting levels set forth in paragraph 

(1), Gulf West must collect an additional representative composite sample within 10 days of 

being made aware of the exceedence and test it expeditiously for the constituent(s) which exceeded delisting levels in the original annual sample. 

(ii) The samples for the annual testing shall be a representative composite 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 Gulf West 

Landfill Leachate are representative for all constituents listed in paragraph (1). 

(iii) The samples for the annual testing taken for the second and subsequent annual testing 

events shall be taken within the same calendar month as the first annual sample taken. 

(iv) The annual testing report should include the total amount of delisted waste in cubic yards disposed during the calendar year. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

5118 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 19 / Friday, January 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued 

Facility Address Waste description 

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If Gulf West 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 (by illustration, but not limitation, changes in equipment or 

operating conditions of the treatment process), it must notify EPA in writing and it may no 

longer handle the waste generated from the new process as non-hazardous until the waste 

meet the delisting levels set in paragraph (1) and it has received written approval to do so from 

EPA. Gulf West must submit a modification to the petition complete with full sampling and analysis for circumstances where the waste volume changes and/or additional waste codes are 

added to the waste stream. 

(5) Data Submittals: Gulf West must submit the information described below. If Gulf West 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(6). Gulf West must: 

(A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph 3 to the Chief, Corrective Action and Waste Minimization Section, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., 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. 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.’’ 

(6) Reopener 

(A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste Gulf West possesses or is otherwise made 

aware of any environmental data (including but not limited to leachate data or ground water 

monitoring data) or any other data relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent 

identified for the delisting verification testing is at level higher than the delisting level allowed by 

the Division Director in granting the petition, then the facility must report the data, in writing, to 

the Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. 

(B) If either the annual testing (and retest, if applicable) of the waste does not meet the delisting 

requirements in paragraph 1, Gulf West 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 Gulf West fails to submit the information described in paragraphs (5),(6)(A) or (6)(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 (6)(D) or (if no information is presented under paragraph (6)(D)) the initial receipt of information described in 

paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(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. 

(7) Notification Requirements: Gulf West 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 have begun. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 19 / Friday, January 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 5119 

TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued 

Facility Address Waste description 

(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 variance and a possible revocation of the decision. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

TABLE 2—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

Gulf West Landfill ..... Anahuac, TX ........... Landfill Leachate (EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers F019, F039, K017, K019, K020.) generated at 

a maximum rate of 1,300,000 gallons (6,436 cubic yards) per calendar year after [insert publication date of the final rule]. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–1794 Filed 1–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 11–96; MB Docket No. 11–8; RM–11618] 

Television Broadcasting Services; 

Jackson, MS 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission has before it 

a petition for rulemaking filed by George 

S. Flinn, Jr., the licensee of station 

WWJX–DT, channel 51, Jackson, 

Mississippi, requesting the substitution 

of channel 23 for channel 51 at Jackson. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before February 28, 2011, and reply 

comments on or before March 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. In addition to filing comments 

with the FCC, interested parties should 

serve counsel for petitioner as follows: 

Stephen C. Simpson, Esq., 1250 

Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 200, 

Washington, DC 20036. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce L. Bernstein, 

joyce.bernstein@fcc.gov, Media Bureau, 

(202) 418–1600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

11–8, adopted January 13, 2011, and 

released January 20, 2011. The full text 

of this document is available for public 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC’s Reference 

Information Center at Portals II, CY– 

A257, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

will also be available via ECFS (http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents 

will be available electronically in ASCII, 

Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This 

document may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1– 

800–478–3160 or via e-mail http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an e-mail 

to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). This document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed information 

collection burden ‘‘for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. Members of the public 

should note that from the time a Notice 

of Proposed Rule Making is issued until 

the matter is no longer subject to 

Commission consideration or court 

review, all ex parte contacts (other than 

ex parte presentations exempt under 47 

CFR 1.1204(a)) are prohibited in 

Commission proceedings, such as this 

one, which involve channel allotments. 

See 47 CFR 1.1208 for rules governing 

restricted proceedings. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Television, Television broadcasting. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

Part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for Part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. 

§ 73.622(i) [Amended] 

2. Section 73.622(i), the PostTransition Table of DTV Allotments 

under Mississippi, is amended by 

adding channel 23 and removing 

channel 51 at Jackson. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Barbara A. Kreisman, 

Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1933 Filed 1–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS