Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76677 

180.940(a) for residues of didecyl 

dimethyl ammonium carbonate and 

didecyl ammonium bicarbonate 

(hereinafter cited jointly as DDACB), in 

or on food-contact surfaces when 

applied/used in public eating places, 

dairy processing equipment, and/or 

food processing equipment, and utensils 

at 400 ppm. The petitioner believes no 

analytical method is needed because the 

subject quaternary ammonium 

compounds are exempt from the 

requirements of a tolerance. Contact: 

Drusilla Copeland, (703) 308–6224, 

email address: 

copeland.drusilla@epa.gov. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Agricultural commodities, Feed 

additives, Food additives, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: November 30, 2011. 

Daniel J. Rosenblatt, 

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 

of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31560 Filed 12–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[FDMS Docket No.: EPA–R08–RCRA–2011– 

0823; FRL–9502–4] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (‘‘EPA,’’ ‘‘the Agency’’ or ‘‘we’’ 

in this preamble) is proposing to grant 

a petition submitted by the 

ConocoPhillips Billings, Montana 

Refinery (‘‘ConocoPhillips’’ or 

‘‘Petitioner’’) to exclude or ‘‘delist,’’ 

from the list of hazardous wastes, 

residual solids from sludge removed 

from two storm water tanks at its 

Billings, Montana refinery and 

processed in accordance with the 

petition. The EPA used the Delisting 

Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) in the 

evaluation of the potential impact of the 

petitioned waste on human health and 

the environment. 

The EPA’s proposed decision to grant 

the petition is based on an evaluation of 

waste-specific information provided by 

ConocoPhillips. This proposed decision, 

if finalized, would conditionally 

exclude the petitioned waste from the 

requirements of the hazardous waste 

regulations under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

This exclusion would be valid only 

when sludge from the two storm water 

tanks is dewatered and de-oiled using a 

filter press and/or portable centrifuge, 

and the resulting residual solids are 

disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle D 

landfill that is permitted, licensed, or 

registered by a state to manage 

industrial solid waste. If finalized, the 

EPA would conclude that 

ConocoPhillips’ petitioned waste is 

nonhazardous with respect to the 

original listing criteria and that there are 

no other factors that would cause the 

waste to be hazardous. 

DATES: The EPA will accept public 

comments on this proposed decision 

until January 9, 2012 the EPA will 

stamp comments received after the close 

of the comment period as late. These 

late comments may not be considered in 

formulating a final decision. Any person 

may request an informal hearing on this 

proposed decision by filing a request to 

the EPA by December 22, 2011. The 

request must contain the information 

prescribed in 40 CFR 260.20(d). 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No.: EPA–R08– 

RCRA–2011–0823, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: cosentini.christina@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (303) 312–6341. 

4. Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: 

Deliver your comments to Christina 

Cosentini, Solid and Hazardous Waste 

Program, EPA Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

HW, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Courier or hand 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

EPA Region 8’s normal hours of 

operation from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. The 

public is advised to call in advance to 

verify the business hours. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No.: EPA–R08–RCRA–2011– 

0823. The 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 through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

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, 

the 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 the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

not include special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket visit the 

EPA Docket Center home page at 

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/ 

dockets.htm. 

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, 

i.e., 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 either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at: EPA Region 8, from 8 a.m. to 

4 p.m., 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado, contact: Christina Cosentini, 

phone number (303) 312–6231. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christina Cosentini, Solid and 

Hazardous Waste Program, EPA Region 

8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mail Code 8P– 

HW, Denver, Colorado 80202, (303) 

312–6231, cosentini.christina@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this section is organized 

as follows: 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is the EPA approving? 

B. Why is the EPA approving this 

delisting? 

C. How will ConocoPhillips Billings 

Refinery manage the waste, if it is 

delisted? 

II. Background 

A. What is a listed waste? 

B. What is a delisting petition? 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76678 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

C. What factors must the EPA consider in 

deciding whether to grant a delisting 

petition? 

III. The EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What waste did ConocoPhillips petition 

the EPA to delist? 

B. How does ConocoPhillips generate the 

waste? 

C. How did ConocoPhillips sample and 

analyze the waste? 

D. What were the results of the 

ConocoPhillips waste analysis? 

E. How did the EPA evaluate the risk of 

delisting this waste? 

F. What did the EPA conclude about the 

ConocoPhillips waste? 

IV. Conditions for Exclusion 

A. When would the EPA finalize the 

proposed delisting exclusion? 

B. How will ConocoPhillips manage the 

waste if it is delisted? 

C. What are the maximum allowable 

concentrations of hazardous constituents 

in the waste? 

D. How frequently must ConocoPhillips 

test the waste? 

E. What data must ConocoPhillips submit? 

F. What happens if ConocoPhillips waste 

fails to meet the conditions of the 

exclusion? 

G. What must ConocoPhillips do if the 

process changes? 

V. How would this action affect states? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is the EPA approving? 

The EPA is proposing to grant a 

petition submitted by the 

ConocoPhillips Billings Refinery to have 

residual solids from processing sludge 

removed from two storm water tanks at 

its Billings, Montana Refinery excluded 

or delisted from the RCRA definition of 

a hazardous waste, contingent upon 

such waste being dewatered and deoiled using a filter press and/or portable 

centrifuge and the resulting solids 

disposed in a RCRA Subtitle D Landfill. 

B. Why is the EPA approving this 

delisting? 

The ConocoPhillips petition 

requested the residual solids from 

processed storm water tank sludge be 

excluded from the F037 waste listing. 

F037 wastes are wastes that are 

generated in the separation of oil/water/ 

solids from petroleum refinery process 

wastewaters and oily cooling 

wastewaters. This exclusion will apply 

to an annual maximum of 200 cubic 

yards of residual solids. ConocoPhillips 

claims that the petitioned waste does 

not meet the criteria for which the EPA 

listed it, and that there are no additional 

constituents or factors which could 

cause the waste to be hazardous. 

Based on our review described in 

section III, we agree with the petitioner 

that the waste is nonhazardous. The 

EPA reviewed the description of the 

process which generates the waste and 

the analytical data submitted by 

ConocoPhillips. We believe that the 

petitioned waste does not meet the 

criteria for the F037 waste listing, and 

that there are no other factors which 

might cause the residual solids to be 

hazardous. 

C. How will ConocoPhillips Billings 

Refinery manage the waste if it is 

delisted? 

ConocoPhillips will dispose of the 

residual solids from the processed storm 

water tank sludge in a RCRA Subtitle D 

landfill which is regulated by the State 

of Montana, or other state subject to 

Federal RCRA delisting, to manage 

industrial waste. 

II. Background 

A. What is a listed waste? 

The EPA published an amended list 

of hazardous wastes from nonspecific 

and specific sources on January 16, 

1981, as part of its final and interim 

final regulations implementing section 

3001 of RCRA. The EPA has amended 

this list several times and published it 

at 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. The EPA 

lists these wastes as hazardous because: 

(1) They 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) 

they meet the criteria for listing 

contained in 40 CFR 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 40 CFR 

261.3(a)(2)(iv) or (c)(2)(i), known as the 

‘‘mixture’’ or ‘‘derived-from’’ rules 

respectively. 

B. What is a delisting petition? 

Individual waste streams may vary 

depending on raw materials, industrial 

processes, and other factors. Thus, 

while a waste described in the 

regulations generally is hazardous, a 

specific waste from an individual 

facility meeting the listing description 

may not be. A procedure to exclude or 

delist a waste is provided in 40 CFR 

260.20 and 260.22, which allows a 

person, or a facility, to submit a petition 

to the EPA, or an authorized state, 

demonstrating that a specific waste from 

a particular generating facility is not 

hazardous. 

In a delisting petition, the petitioner 

must show that a waste does not meet 

any of the criteria for listed wastes in 40 

CFR 261.11 and that the waste does not 

exhibit any of the hazardous waste 

characteristics of ignitability, reactivity, 

corrosivity, or toxicity. The petitioner 

must present sufficient information for 

the EPA to decide whether any factors, 

in addition to those for which the waste 

was listed, warrant retaining it as a 

hazardous waste. (See 40 CFR 260.22; 

42 U.S.C. 6921(f).) 

If a delisting petition is granted, the 

generator remains obligated under 

RCRA to confirm that the waste remains 

nonhazardous. 

C. What factors must the EPA consider 

in deciding whether to grant a delisting 

petition? 

In reviewing this petition, we 

considered the original listing criteria 

and the additional factors required by 

the Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See 

HSWA § 222, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f); 40 CFR 

260.22(d)(1)–(4). We evaluated the 

petitioned waste against the listing 

criteria and factors cited in 

§§ 261.11(a)(2) and (3). 

In addition to considering the criteria 

in 40 CFR 260.22(a) and 261.11(a)(2) 

and (3), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 

information in the background 

documents for the listed waste, the EPA 

must consider any factors (including 

additional constituents) other than those 

for which the EPA listed the waste, if 

these additional factors could cause the 

waste to be hazardous. 

The EPA’s tentative decision to delist 

waste from the ConocoPhillips Billings 

Refinery is based on our evaluation of 

the waste for factors or criteria that 

could cause the waste to be hazardous. 

These factors include: (1) Whether the 

waste is considered acutely toxic; (2) the 

toxicity of the constituents; (3) the 

concentration of the constituents in the 

waste; (4) the tendency of the 

constituents to migrate and to 

bioaccumulate; (5) the persistence in the 

environment of any constituents once 

released from the waste; (6) plausible 

and specific types of management of the 

petitioned waste; (7) the quantity of 

waste produced; and (8) waste 

variability. 

The EPA must also consider as 

hazardous wastes mixtures containing 

listed hazardous wastes and wastes 

derived from treating, storing, or 

disposing of listed hazardous waste. See 

40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i) 

(referred to as the ‘‘mixture’’ and 

‘‘derived-from’’ rules, respectively). 

Mixture and derived-from wastes are 

also eligible for exclusion but remain 

hazardous until excluded. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76679 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What waste did ConocoPhillips 

petition the EPA to delist? 

On December 3, 2010, ConocoPhillips 

petitioned the EPA to exclude a 

maximum annual volume of 200 cubic 

yards of F037 residual solids from 

processing (for oil recovery) the sludge 

removed from the two storm water tanks 

at the Billings, Montana refinery from 

the lists of hazardous waste contained 

in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. The F037 

listing includes residuals from the 

processing of oil-bearing hazardous 

secondary materials (i.e., the sludge in 

the storm water tanks) excluded under 

40 CFR 261.4(a)(12)(i). Sediment in the 

storm water tanks accumulates from 

storm water runoff from the Refinery’s 

process area, as well as some dryweather flow consisting of water from 

wash-down, maintenance, and cleaning 

activities, steam condensate and heat 

exchanger back-flushing. This sediment 

is processed by the refinery for the 

recovery of oil and the residual solids 

are classified as hazardous waste due a 

conservative interpretation for the 

assignment of hazardous waste code 

F037. The waste conservatively falls 

under the classification of listed waste 

under 40 CFR 261.3. 

B. How does ConocoPhillips generate 

the waste? 

ConocoPhillips generates the waste 

through periodically removing and 

processing sludge accumulated in two 

storm water tanks through oil recovery 

and dewatering. The sludge in the storm 

water tanks is accumulated storm water 

runoff from the Refinery’s process area, 

and some dry-weather flow consisting of 

water from wash-down, maintenance, 

and cleaning activities as well as steam 

condensate and heat exchanger backflushing. The sludge in not accumulated 

at a constant rate and is currently 

removed from the tanks at 

approximately 18 month intervals and 

processed via centrifuge and/or filter 

press for oil recovery and dewatering. 

Recovered oil is reinserted into the 

refining process and water from 

dewatering is routed to the Refinery’s 

on-site wastewater treatment plant. 

C. How did ConocoPhillips sample and 

analyze the waste? 

ConocoPhillips collected sample 

sludge from 16 locations in each tank, 

the sludge was composited and 

processed for oil recovery and 

dewatering through a filter press, and 

submission of the filter pressed residual 

solid material for analysis. A total of 

eight composite samples, one duplicate 

and one matrix spike/matrix duplicate 

were analyzed for both total and 

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure (TCLP) analyses of 

constituents of concern (COC). The COC 

list was comprised of a subset of the 

Appendix IX constituent list in 40 CFR 

264, and was based on: (1) Knowledge 

of the refinery processes and wastes; (2) 

the evaluation of available references, 

including Exhibit 3 of the March 23, 

2000 USEPA RCRA Delisting Program 

Guidance manual for the Petitioner 

entitled Constituents of Concern for 

Wastes from Petroleum Processes; (3) 

the U.S. EPA Region 5 ‘‘Skinner List’’ 

constituents and (4) the basis for the 

F037 listing per 40 CFR 261 Appendix 

VII. Each sample was also analyzed for 

pH, oil & grease, total cyanide and total 

sulfide. Two samples of the filter 

pressed material (one from each tank) 

were analyzed using both neutral and 

alkaline pH TCLP extraction fluids as 

presented in the delisting guidance. 

D. What were the results of the 

ConocoPhillips waste analysis? 

The table below presents the 

maximum observed total concentrations 

and the TCLP concentrations for all the 

COC. Total concentrations are expressed 

in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and 

leachate concentrations are expressed in 

milligrams per liter (mg/L). 

ConocoPhillips submitted a signed 

statement certifying accuracy and 

responsibility of the results. See 40 CFR 

260.22(i)(12)). 

TABLE I—MAXIMUM TOTAL AND TCLP CONCENTRATIONS AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATION LEVELS

[Storm Water Tank—Filter Press residual solids, ConocoPhillips Billings Refinery, Billings, Montana] 

Constituent 

Maximum total 

constituent analysis 

(mg/kg) 

Maximum TCLP 

constituent analysis 

(mg/L) 

Maximum allowable 

TCLP delisting 

concentration level 

(mg/L) 

Acenaphthene .............................................................................................. 8 .0 < .0051 37 .9 

Antimony ...................................................................................................... 1 .89 .0074 .97 

Anthracene ................................................................................................... 18 .0 .0017 50 

Arsenic ......................................................................................................... 60 .1 .157 .301 

Barium .......................................................................................................... 196 1 .12 100 

Benz(a)anthracene ...................................................................................... 3 .6 < .005 .25 

Benzene ....................................................................................................... .031 < .01 .5 

Benzo(a)pyrene ........................................................................................... 1 .5 < .006 1 .1 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene .................................................................................. .6 < .008 8 .7 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene ................................................................................... .66 < .008 50 

Beryllium ...................................................................................................... < .13 < .003 2 .78 

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ............................................................................ 1 .8 < .0033 50 

2-Butanone .................................................................................................. .12 < .02 50 

Butyl Benzyl phthalate ................................................................................. < .11 < .0007 46 .5 

Cadmium ...................................................................................................... 1 .46 < .006 1 .0 

Carbon disulfide ........................................................................................... .0083J < .02 36 

Chromium .................................................................................................... 152 < .006 5 .0 

Chrysene ...................................................................................................... 4 .2 < .008 25 .0 

Chlorobenzene ............................................................................................. <0 .13 < .01 16 .4 

Chloroform ................................................................................................... < .013 < .01 .286 

Cobalt ........................................................................................................... 24 .4 .0074 .763 

Cyanide(total) ............................................................................................... 7 .72 < .003 41 .2 

Dibenz(a,h)anthrancene .............................................................................. .17 <0 .008 1 .16 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene .................................................................................... < .0013 < .01 50 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene .................................................................................... < .0013 < .01 18 .5 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene .................................................................................... < .0011 < .01 1 .69 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76680 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE I—MAXIMUM TOTAL AND TCLP CONCENTRATIONS AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATION

LEVELS—Continued 

[Storm Water Tank—Filter Press residual solids, ConocoPhillips Billings Refinery, Billings, Montana] 

Constituent 

Maximum total 

constituent analysis 

(mg/kg) 

Maximum TCLP 

constituent analysis 

(mg/L) 

Maximum allowable 

TCLP delisting 

concentration level 

(mg/L) 

1, 2-Dichloroethane ..................................................................................... < .0013 < .01 .375 

1,1-Dichloroethane ....................................................................................... < .0013 < .01 50 

1,1-Dichloroethylene .................................................................................... < .0013 < .01 .7 

Diethyl phthalate .......................................................................................... < .11 < .0005 50 

Dimethyl phthalate ....................................................................................... < .11 < .0005 50 

2, 4-Dimethylphenol ..................................................................................... < .13 < .0019 40 .4 

Di-n-butyl phthalate ...................................................................................... < .11 < .0005 50 

2, 4-Dintrophenol ......................................................................................... < .23 < .0014 4 .12 

2, 4-Dinitrotoluene ....................................................................................... < .22 < .001 .059 

Di-n-octyl phthalate ...................................................................................... .19 < .0006 50 

1,4-Dioxane .................................................................................................. < .43 <2 36 .5 

Ethylbenzene ............................................................................................... .660 < .01 12 

Ethylene Dibromide ..................................................................................... < .0013 < .01 2 .74 

Fluoranthene ................................................................................................ 3 .8 <0 .0035J 8 .78 

Fluorene ....................................................................................................... 19 .0 <0 .0085 17 .5 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ................................................................................ .440 <0 .0013 27 .3 

Lead ............................................................................................................. 43 .1 0 .0053 5 .0 

Mercury ........................................................................................................ 1 .46 0 .00005 0 .2 

MTBE ........................................................................................................... < .013 < .01 50 

m&p -Cresol ................................................................................................. 1 .60 .024 10 .3 

Naphthalene ................................................................................................. 90 .0 0 .086 1 .17 

Nickel ........................................................................................................... 212 0 .173 48 .2 

Nitrobenzene ................................................................................................ < .12 < .0008 1 .03 

4-Nitrophenol ............................................................................................... < .22 < .0019 50 

o-Cresol ....................................................................................................... .170 < .001 50 

Phenanthrene .............................................................................................. 62 .0 < .180 50 

Phenol .......................................................................................................... .320J .0032 50 

Pyrene .......................................................................................................... 9 .7 <0 .0026J 15 .9 

Pyridine ........................................................................................................ < .11 < .002 2 .06 

Quinoline ...................................................................................................... < .11 < .0006 50 

Selenium ...................................................................................................... 100 .18 1 .0 

Silver ............................................................................................................ .16J <0 .007 5 .0 

Styrene ......................................................................................................... < .013 < .01 50 

Sulfide (total) ................................................................................................ 145 N/A 500 

Tetrachloroethene ........................................................................................ .073 < .012 .7 

Toluene ........................................................................................................ .630 .02J 26 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane ................................................................................... < .0013 < .01 50 

Trichloroethene ............................................................................................ .0076 < .01 .403 

Vanadium ..................................................................................................... 114 .13 12 .3 

Xylenes, Total .............................................................................................. 7 .60 .071 22 

Zinc .............................................................................................................. 1140 .227 500

Notes: 

(A) These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent found in any one sample. These levels do not necessarily represent 

the specific levels found in one sample. 

(B) Based on lowest level of: nominal upper limit, land disposal restriction limit, RCRA hazardous level; or DRAS modeling with a target risk of 

10–6 and a target HI of 0.1 with the exception of: arsenic, naphthalene and 1,4-Dioxane TCLP set at 10–5 and HI of 1.0. 

E. How did the EPA evaluate the risk of 

delisting this waste? 

For this delisting determination, the 

EPA applied the Delisting Risk 

Assessment Software (DRAS) described 

in various EPA rulemakings. See, e.g., 

65 FR 58,015 (Sept. 27, 2000); 65 FR 

75,637 (Dec. 4, 2000) and 73 FR 28,768 

(May 19, 2008). We used the most recent 

version of DRAS, v.3.0.34 updated in 

September 2010. DRAS calculates the 

potential risks associated with disposing 

a given waste stream to a landfill or 

surface impoundment. For a given waste 

stream, DRAS calculates both the 

waste’s aggregate risks and also backcalculates each waste constituent’s 

maximum allowable concentration 

permissible for delisting. DRAS requires 

the user to assign a target cancer risk 

and hazard index. 

For this analysis, DRAS was used to 

predict the maximum allowable 

concentrations of hazardous 

constituents that may be released from 

ConocoPhillips’s storm water tank filter 

press solids after landfill disposal, and 

determined the potential impact of 

disposal on human health and the 

environment. In assessing potential 

risks to ground water, the EPA used the 

maximum estimated waste volumes and 

the maximum reported extract 

concentrations as inputs to the DRAS 

program to estimate the constituent 

concentrations in ground water at a 

hypothetical receptor well down 

gradient from the disposal site. The EPA 

used two risk levels to evaluate the 

ConocoPhillips waste: carcinogenic risk 

of 10–6 and non-cancer hazard index of 

0.1 and; 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 the EPA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76681 

health-based numbers. Using the 

maximum compliance-point 

concentrations and the EPA Composite 

Model for Leachate Migration with 

Transformation Products (EPACMTP) 

fate and transport modeling factors, 

DRAS further back-calculates the 

maximum permissible waste constituent 

concentrations not expected to exceed 

the compliance-point concentrations in 

ground water. 

The EPA believes the EPACMTP fate 

and transport model represents a 

reasonable worst-case scenario for 

possible ground water contamination 

resulting from disposal of the petitioned 

waste in a landfill, and that a reasonable 

worst-case scenario is appropriate when 

evaluating whether a waste should be 

relieved of the 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. 

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 or 

wind-blown particulate from the 

landfill). As in the above ground water 

analyses, 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, DRAS uses 

the maximum compliance-point 

concentrations and back-calculates the 

maximum allowable waste constituent 

concentrations, also known as delisting 

levels. In most cases, because a delisted 

waste is no longer subject to hazardous 

waste control, the EPA is generally 

unable to predict, and does not 

presently control, how a petitioner will 

manage a waste after delisting. 

Therefore, the EPA currently believes 

that it is inappropriate to consider 

extensive site specific factors when 

applying the fate and transport model. 

DRAS results, which calculate the 

maximum allowable concentration of 

chemical constituents in the waste, are 

presented in Table I. Based on the 

comparison of DRAS results and the 

maximum TCLP and Totals 

concentrations 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 

above the delisting levels. 

F. What did the EPA conclude about the 

ConocoPhillips waste? 

ConocoPhillips’s petition requests a 

delisting of the residual solids from 

processed sludge from the two storm 

water tanks from being considered a 

F037 waste. ConocoPhillips believes 

that the storm water tank sludge does 

not meet the original criteria for the 

hazardous waste listing. ConocoPhillips 

also believes no additional constituents 

or factors could cause the waste to be 

hazardous. The 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 

RCRA 3001(f), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f); 40 CFR 

260.22(d)(1)–(4). In making the initial 

delisting determination, the EPA 

evaluated the petitioned waste against 

the listing criteria and factors cited in 40 

CFR 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on 

this review, the EPA agrees with the 

petitioner that the waste is 

nonhazardous with respect to the 

original listing criteria. If the EPA, based 

on this review, had found that the waste 

remained hazardous based on the 

factors for which the waste was 

originally listed, the EPA would have 

proposed to deny the petition. The 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. 

The 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. The 

EPA believes that the petitioned waste 

does not meet the listing criteria and 

thus should not be a listed waste. The 

EPA’s proposed decision to delist waste 

from the ConocoPhillips Billings 

Refinery is based on the information 

submitted in support of this rule, 

including descriptions of the wastes and 

analytical chemistry data of the residual 

solids from the storm water tank cleanout. 

The maximum reported 

concentrations of hazardous 

constituents found in the filter press 

solids and the filter press solids TCLP 

extracts are presented in Table I above. 

The table also presents the maximum 

allowable concentrations in a TCLP 

extract of the residual solids from storm 

water tank sludge processing, calculated 

by the DRAS program. The 

concentrations of all constituents in 

leachate from the filter press solids are 

below the allowable concentrations. We, 

therefore, conclude that the 

ConocoPhillips waste does not pose a 

potential substantial hazard to human 

health and the environment when 

disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle D 

landfill. 

We, therefore, propose to grant 

exclusion for this waste. If this 

exclusion is finalized, ConocoPhillips 

must dispose of the residual solids from 

the processed storm water tank sludge 

in a RCRA Subtitle D landfill regulated 

by the State of Montana, or other state 

subject to Federal RCRA delisting, to 

manage industrial waste. Prior to 

disposal ConocoPhillips must verify 

that the concentrations of the 

constituents of concern in the residual 

solids do not exceed the allowable 

levels set forth in this exclusion. The 

list of constituents for verification is 

based on the concentration and 

frequency of occurrence, as presented in 

the ConocoPhillips petition. 

IV. Conditions for Exclusion 

A. When would the EPA finalize the 

proposed delisting exclusion? 

RCRA 3001(f) specifically requires the 

EPA to provide notice and an 

opportunity for comment before 

granting or denying a final exclusion. 

Thus, the EPA will not grant the 

exclusion unless and until it addresses 

all timely public comments on this 

proposal, including any at public 

hearings. 

RCRA 3010(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 

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

effective in less than six months when 

the regulated community does not need 

the six-month period to come into 

compliance. That is the case here, 

because this rule, if finalized, would 

reduce the existing requirements for 

persons generating hazardous wastes. 

The EPA believes that this exclusion 

should be effective immediately upon 

publication of the final rule because a 

six-month deadline is not necessary to 

achieve the purpose of RCRA 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). 

B. How will ConocoPhillips manage the 

waste if it is delisted? 

ConocoPhillips must dispose of the 

residual solids from the processed storm 

water tank sludge in a RCRA Subtitle D 

landfill that is regulated by the State of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76682 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Montana, or other state subject to 

Federal RCRA delisting, to manage 

industrial waste. ConocoPhillips must 

verify prior to disposal that the 

concentrations of the COC in the 

residual solids do not exceed the 

allowable levels set forth in this 

exclusion. 

C. What are the maximum allowable 

concentrations of hazardous 

constituents in the waste? 

Concentrations measured in the TCLP 

extract of the waste must not exceed the 

values given in Table I. 

D. How frequently must ConocoPhillips 

test the waste? 

During the period of cleanout, 

ConocoPhillips must collect two 

composite samples of the residual solids 

from the filter pressed sludge to account 

for potential variability in each tank. 

Composite samples from the storm 

water tanks processed residuals must be 

collected each time cleanout occurs and 

residuals are generated. TCLP analyses 

for the standard acid extraction for trace 

elements and organic COC listed in 

Table I must be conducted. 

Concentrations of all constituents must 

be below the delisting limits in Table I 

above. 

E. What data must ConocoPhillips 

submit? 

Whenever tank cleanout is conducted, 

ConocoPhillips must verify that the 

filter press solids meet the delisting 

levels in 40 CFR 261, Appendix IX, 

Table 1, as amended by this notice. 

ConocoPhillips must submit the 

verification data to U.S. EPA Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, RCRA Delisting 

Program, Mail code 8P–HW, Denver, CO 

80202. ConocoPhillips must compile, 

summarize and maintain, onsite, 

records of operating conditions and 

analytical data for a period of five years. 

F. What happens if ConocoPhillips 

waste fails to meet the conditions of the 

exclusion? 

If ConocoPhillips violates the terms 

and conditions established in this 

exclusion, the EPA will initiate 

procedures to withdraw the exclusion. 

Where there is an immediate threat to 

human health and the environment, the 

EPA will evaluate the need for 

enforcement activities on a case-by-case 

basis. The EPA expects ConocoPhillips 

to conduct the appropriate waste 

analysis and comply with the criteria 

detailed in 40 CFR 261, Appendix IX, 

Table 1, as amended by this notice. 

G. What must ConocoPhillips do if the 

process changes? 

ConocoPhillips must notify the EPA 

in writing if the manufacturing process, 

the chemicals used in the 

manufacturing process, the treatment 

process, or the chemicals used in the 

treatment process significantly change. 

ConocoPhillips must handle wastes 

generated after the process change as 

hazardous until it has: demonstrated 

that the wastes continue to meet the 

delisting concentrations in paragraph 

(1); Demonstrated that no new 

hazardous constituents listed in 

Appendix VIII of 40 CFR 261 have been 

introduced; and it has received written 

approval from the EPA. 

V. How would this action affect states? 

Because the 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 who have received authorization 

from the EPA to make their own 

delisting decisions. 

The EPA allows states to impose their 

own non-RCRA regulatory requirements 

that are more stringent than the EPA’s, 

under RCRA 3009, 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, the EPA urges 

petitioners to contact the state 

regulatory authority to establish the 

status of their wastes under applicable 

state law. Delisting petitions approved 

by the EPA Administrator or his 

delegate pursuant to 40 CFR 260.22 are 

effective in the State of Montana after 

the final rule has been published in the 

Federal Register. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ (58 

FR 51735, Oct. 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 final 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, Aug. 10, 

1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this rule. Similarly, 

because this rule will apply to a 

particular facility, this final rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175, 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments,’’ (65 FR 

67249, Nov. 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, Apr. 23, 

1997) because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866, and because the Agency 

does not have reason to believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is that the Agency 

used DRAS, which considers health and 

safety risks to children, to calculate the 

maximum allowable concentrations for 

this rule. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. This rule does 

not involve technical standards; thus, 

the requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’, (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, 

the EPA has taken the necessary steps 

to eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, 

and provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76683 

Dated: November 18, 2011. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 

40 CFR part 261 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, 6924(y) and 6938. 

2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX to part 

261 add the following waste stream in 

alphabetical order by facility to read as 

follows: 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Waste 

Excluded Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 

260.22 

TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

ConocoPhillips Billings 

Refinery.

Billings, Montana ....... Residual solids from centrifuge and/or filter press processing of storm water tank sludge (F037) 

generated at a maximum annual rate of 200 cubic yards per year must be disposed in a 

lined Subtitle D landfill, licensed, permitted or otherwise authorized by a state to accept the 

delisted processed storm water tank sludge. The exclusion becomes effective December 8, 

2011. 

For the exclusion to be valid, the ConocoPhillips Billings Refinery must implement a verification 

testing program that meets the following Paragraphs: 

1. Delisting levels: The constituent concentrations in a leachate extract of the waste measured 

in any sample must not exceed the following concentrations (mg/L TCLP): Acenaphthene37.9; Antimony-.97; Anthracene-50; Arsenic-.301; Barium-100; Benz(a)anthracene-.25; Benzene-.5; Benzo(a)pyrene-1.1; Benzo(b)fluoranthene-8.7; Benzo(k) fluoranthene-50; Bis(2- 

ethylhexyl)phthalate-50; 2-Butanone-50; Cadmium-1.0; Carbon disulfide-36; Chromium-5.0; 

Chrysene-25.0; Cobalt-.763; Cyanide(total)-41.2; Dibenz(a,h)anthrancene-1.16; Di-n-octyl 

phthalate-50; 1,4–Dioxane-36.5; Ethylbenzene-12; Fluoranthene-8.78; Fluorene-17.5; 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene-27.3; Lead-5.0; Mercury-.2; m&p-Cresol-10.3; Naphthalene-1.17; 

Nickel-48.2; o-Cresol-50; Phenanthrene-50; Phenol-50; Pyrene-15.9; Selenium-1.0; Silver5.0; Tetrachloroethene-0.7; Toluene-26;Trichloroethene-.403; Vanadium-12.3; Xylenes (total)- 

22; Zinc-500. 

2. Verification Testing: To verify that the waste does not exceed the specified delisting levels, 

ConocoPhillips must collect and analyze two composite samples of the residual solids from 

the processed sludge to account for potential variability in each tank. Composite samples 

must be collected each time cleanout occurs and residuals are generated. Sample collection 

and analyses, including quality control procedures, must be performed using appropriate 

methods. If oil and grease comprise less than 1 percent of the waste, SW–846 Method 1311 

must be used for generation of the leachate extract used in the testing for constituents of 

concern listed above. SW–846 Method 1330A must be used for generation of the leaching 

extract if oil and grease comprise 1 percent or more of the waste. SW–846 Method 9071B 

must be used for determination of oil and grease. SW–846 Methods 1311, 1330A, and 

9071B are incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11. As applicable, the SW–846 methods 

might include Methods 1311, 3010, 3510, 6010, 6020, 7470, 7471, 8260, 8270, 9014, 9034, 

9213, and 9215. If leachate concentrations measured in samples do not exceed the levels 

set forth in paragraph 1, ConocoPhillips can dispose of the filter pressed sludge in a lined 

Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by the state of Montana or other 

state which is subject to Federal RCRA delisting. If constituent levels in any sample and any 

retest sample for any constituent exceed the delisting levels set in paragraph (1) 

ConocoPhillips must do the following: (A) notify the EPA in accordance with paragraph (5) 

and; (B) manage and dispose of the process residual solids as F037 hazardous waste generated under Subtitle C of RCRA. 

3. Changes in Operating Conditions: ConocoPhillips must notify the EPA in writing if the manufacturing process, the chemicals used in the manufacturing process, the treatment process, 

or the chemicals used in the treatment process significantly change. ConocoPhillips must 

handle wastes generated after the process change as hazardous until it has: demonstrated 

that the wastes continue to meet the delisting concentrations in paragraph (1); demonstrated 

that no new hazardous constituents listed in appendix VIII of part 261 have been introduced; 

and it has received written approval from the EPA. 

4. Data Submittal: Whenever tank cleanout is conducted ConocoPhillips must verify that the residual solids from the processed storm water tank sludge meet the delisting levels in 40 CFR 

261 Appendix IX Table 1, as amended by this notice. ConocoPhillips must submit the 

verification data to U.S. EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, RCRA Delisting Program, Mail 

code 8P–HW, Denver, CO 80202. ConocoPhillips must compile, summarize and maintain 

onsite records of operating conditions and analytical data for a period of five years. 

5. Reopener Language: (A) If, anytime after final approval of this exclusion, ConocoPhillips 

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 EPA in granting the petition, then the facility 

must report the data, in writing to the EPA at the address above, within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76684 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

(B) If ConocoPhillips fails to submit the information described in paragraph (A) or if any other 

information is received from any source, the EPA will make a preliminary determination as to 

whether the reported information requires EPA 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 requires the EPA action, the EPA will 

notify the facility in writing of the actions the agency 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 the EPA action is not necessary. The facility shall have 30 days from the 

date of the notice to present such information. 

(D) If after 30 days ConocoPhillips 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 EPAs determination shall become effective immediately, unless the EPA provides otherwise. 

(E) Notification Requirements: ConocoPhillips 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. (1) 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. (2) Update the onetime written notification, if it ships the delisted waste to a different disposal facility. (3) Failure 

to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting variance and a possible 

revocation of the decision. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31533 Filed 12–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 281 

[EPA–R10–UST–2011–0896; FRL–9502–6] 

Idaho: Tentative Approval of State 

Underground Storage Tank Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The State of Idaho has 

applied for final approval of its 

Underground Storage Tank (UST) 

Program under Subtitle I of the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

EPA has reviewed Idaho’s application 

and made the tentative decision that the 

State’s UST program satisfies all 

requirements necessary to qualify for 

final approval. 

DATES: A public hearing will be held on 

December 19, 2011 from 9 a.m.–12 p.m. 

at the Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality, Conference 

Room B, 1410 North Hilton, Boise, 

Idaho 83706. The State of Idaho will be 

invited to participate in any public 

hearing held by EPA on this subject. 

Please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, 

Item C, for details. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

UST–2011–0896, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: sirs.erik@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Erik Sirs, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, 1435 

North Orchard, Boise, ID 83706. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–UST–2011– 

0896. 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 email. The 

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

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identify 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your email 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 or any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 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 are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy. 

Please see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION, Item D, for details on the 

location of the documents in hard copy 

form. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik 

Sirs, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Idaho Operations Office, 1435 

North Orchard, Boise, ID 83706. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

Section 9004 of RCRA enables EPA to 

approve implementation of State UST 

programs in lieu of the Federal UST 

program. Approval is granted when it 

has been determined that the State 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS