This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

67919 

Vol. 75, No. 213 

Thursday, November 4, 2010 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R05–RCRA–2010–0843; SW–FRL– 

9221–2] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Proposed Exclusion for 

Identifying and Listing Hazardous 

Waste 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ‘‘the Agency’’ 

or ‘‘we’’ in this preamble) is proposing 

to grant a petition submitted by Owosso 

Graphic Arts Inc. (Owosso), in Owosso 

Michigan to exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) up to 

244 cubic yards of wastewater treatment 

sludge per year from the list of 

hazardous wastes. 

The Agency has tentatively decided to 

grant the petition based on an 

evaluation of waste-specific information 

provided by Owosso. This proposed 

decision, if finalized, conditionally 

excludes the petitioned waste from the 

requirements of hazardous waste 

regulations under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act. 

We conclude that Owosso’s petitioned 

waste is nonhazardous with respect to 

the original listing criteria and that there 

are no other factors which would cause 

the waste to be hazardous when 

disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill 

which is permitted, licensed, or 

registered by a State to manage 

industrial solid waste. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 6, 2010. Requests for 

an informal hearing must reach EPA by 

November 19, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. [EPA–R05– 

RCRA–2010–0843] by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: to Christopher Lambesis, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Land 

and Chemicals Division, (Mail Code: 

LR–8J), EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. 

• Hand Delivery: to Christopher 

Lambesis, Land and Chemicals Division, 

EPA Region 5, 8th Floor, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Please contact Christopher Lambesis at 

(312) 886–3583. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. [EPA–R05–RCRA–2010– 

0843]. 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. 

Any person may request an informal 

hearing on this proposed decision by 

filing a request with Bruce Sypniewski, 

Acting Director, Land and Chemicals 

Division, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. The request 

must contain the information prescribed 

in 40 CFR 260.20(d). 

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 form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Records Center, 7th floor, U.S. EPA 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. We recommend you telephone 

Christopher Lambesis at (312) 886–3583 

before visiting the Region 5 office. The 

public may copy material from the 

regulatory docket at 15 cents per page. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Lambesis, Land and 

Chemicals Division, (Mail Code: LR–8J), 

EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, IL 60604; telephone number: 

(312) 886–3583; fax number (312) 692– 

2195; e-mail address: 

lambesis.christopher@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this section is organized 

as follows: 

I. Overview Information 

II. Background 

A. What is a listed waste? 

B. What is a delisting petition? 

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 waste did Owosso petition EPA to 

delist? 

B. How does Owosso generate the waste? 

C. How did Owosso sample and analyze 

the waste? 

D. What were the results of Owosso’s 

analysis of the waste? 

E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of 

delisting this waste? 

F. What did EPA conclude about Owosso’s 

waste? 

IV. Conditions for Exclusion 

A. When would EPA finalize the proposed 

delisting exclusion? 

B. How will Owosso manage the waste if 

it is delisted? 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

67920 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

C. What are the maximum allowable 

concentrations of hazardous constituents 

in the waste? 

D. How frequently must Owosso test the 

waste? 

E. What data must Owosso submit? 

F. What happens if Owosso’s waste fails to 

meet the conditions of the exclusion? 

G. What must Owosso do if the process 

changes? 

V. How would this action affect states? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview Information 

The EPA is proposing to grant a 

petition submitted by Owosso Graphic 

Arts Incorporated (Owosso) located in 

Owosso, Michigan to exclude or delist 

an annual volume of 244 cubic yards of 

F006 wastewater treatment sludge from 

the lists of hazardous waste set forth in 

Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (40 CFR) 261.31. Owosso 

claims that the petitioned waste does 

not meet the criteria for which 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. We 

reviewed the description of the process 

which generates the waste and the 

analytical data submitted by Owosso. 

We believe that the petitioned waste 

does not meet the criteria for which the 

waste was listed, and that there are no 

other factors which might cause the 

waste to be hazardous. 

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 Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has 

amended this list several times and 

published it in 40 CFR 261.31 and 

261.32. 

We list 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) or (2) they meet the criteria 

for listing contained in § 261.11(a)(2) or 

(3). 

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 to 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 

us to decide whether any factors in 

addition to those for which the waste 

was listed warrant retaining it as a 

hazardous waste. (See § 260.22, 42 

United States Code—U.S.C.—6921(f) 

and the background documents for the 

listed wastes.) 

If a delisting petition is granted, the 

generator remains obligated under 

RCRA to confirm that the waste remains 

nonhazardous. 

C. What factors must 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 

section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), 

and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)–(4). We 

evaluated the petitioned waste against 

the listing criteria and factors cited in 

§ 261.11(a)(2) and (3). 

Besides considering the criteria in 40 

CFR 260.22(a), 261.11(a)(2) and (3), 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 we listed the waste if these 

additional factors could cause the waste 

to be hazardous. 

Our tentative decision to delist waste 

from Owosso’s facility is based on our 

evaluation of the waste for factors or 

criteria which could cause the waste to 

be hazardous. These factors included: 

(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. 

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), called the 

‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derived-from’’ rules, 

respectively. Mixture and derived-from 

wastes are also eligible for exclusion but 

remain hazardous until excluded. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What waste did Owosso petition EPA 

to delist? 

In May 2005, Owosso petitioned EPA 

to exclude an annual volume of 244 

cubic yards of F006 wastewater 

treatment sludges generated at its 

facility located in Owosso, Michigan 

from the list of hazardous wastes 

contained in 40 CFR 261.31. F006 is 

defined in § 261.31 as ‘‘Wastewater 

treatment sludges from electroplating 

operations * * *’’ Owosso claims that 

the petitioned waste does not meet the 

criteria for which F006 was listed (i.e., 

cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel 

and complexed cyanide) and that there 

are no other factors which would cause 

the waste to be hazardous. 

B. How does Owosso generate the waste? 

Owosso Graphic Arts conducts 

chemical etching of magnesium plates 

to produce photoengraved dies for the 

printing and foil stamping industries. 

Owosso Graphic Arts also etches other 

metals using ferric chloride to produce 

similar products. The magnesium 

etching process is physically separated 

from that of the other metals and share 

no common equipment, piping or waste 

handling procedures. 

A desired pattern is applied to a 

magnesium plate in the form of a 

printed laminate sensitive to ultra-violet 

(UV) light. After UV exposure, the 

magnesium plate is exposed to a spray 

of developing agent in a self-contained 

unit that washes away areas of laminate 

where etching is to occur. The solvent 

trichloroethylene (TCE) was used as the 

developing agent until December 2007 

when an aqueous solution (Hydro-Coat) 

containing inorganic sodium salt and a 

surfactant replaced TCE. 

The aqueous developer was used until 

September 2008 when Owosso began 

using the solvent n-methyl 2- 

pyrrolidone (NMP) as the developing 

agent. 

Nitric acid is used to etch the surface 

of magnesium plates to create the 

contoured die surface. The developed 

plate is cleaned with a mild (1–2 

percent) nitric acid solution to remove 

the remaining protective coating from 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67921 

the plate. The cleaning solution is 

discharged to a publicly owned 

treatment works (POTW) subject to the 

Clean Water Act. 

The plate is placed in one of several 

self-contained etching units varying in 

size and equipped with reservoirs of 

nitric acid-based etching solution (nitric 

acid, water, Mag-O 20 detergent). The 

reservoir may contain between 200–400 

liters of etching solution depending on 

the size of the etching unit. Each 

magnesium plate is weighed prior to 

entering the etching process and again 

once etching is completed. The 

difference between the initial weight 

and the post-etching weight is used to 

calculate the amount of magnesium 

residual remaining in the etching 

solution reservoir. The amount of metal 

residue introduced into the etching 

solution varies based on the size of the 

plate being etched and depth of the 

etching required by individual projects. 

Operators of the system may adjust 

the strength of the acid between etching 

events to balance the acid content of the 

solution for optimal etching 

performance. Once the metal 

concentration becomes too great to 

provide optimal etching, the nitric acid 

solution is considered spent and is 

transferred to a wastewater treatment 

process for neutralization. 

Wastewater treatment sludge is 

produced in a batch process in which 

spent etchant (nitric acid based etching 

solution described above) is pumped to 

a holding tank to await treatment. 

Transfer of approximately 500 gallons of 

spent etchant into the holding tank 

occurs on a daily basis. 

The used etchant is combined with 

sodium hydroxide and water to 

neutralize the spent etchant prior to 

discharge to the City of Owosso’s 

POTW. The neutralization process 

requires a residence time of 

approximately 30 minutes for complete 

neutralization of the spent acid solution. 

The treated solution is allowed to settle 

for 12 hours to allow solids to 

precipitate and settle to the bottom of 

the tank. The supernatant liquid is 

decanted for discharge to the POTW. 

Dewatering of precipitate formed 

during wastewater treatment occurs in a 

filter press adjacent to the tank 

containment area. The filter press is 

emptied into three steel gondolas prior 

to being placed in a lined roll-off 

container. 

C. How did Owosso sample and analyze 

the petitioned waste? 

Owosso collected a sample of the 

waste in July 2004 for total oil and 

grease (SW–846 Method 9071B), 

volatiles (SW–846 Method 8260B), semi 

volatiles and pesticides (SW–846 

Method 8270C), polychlorinated 

biphenyls—PCBs—(SW–846 Method 

8082), and metals (SW–846 Method 

6010B except for mercury—SW–846 

Method 7471). Owosso sampled the 

sludge again in August 2004 for oil and 

grease (SW–846 Method 9071B). 

Owosso continued to characterize the 

waste based on a November 2004 

Sampling and Analysis Plan. Due to the 

small waste stream size, EPA and 

Owosso agreed to conservatively 

estimate constituent leaching by 

dividing the total result by 20. This 

simulates the TCLP test with the 

assumption that all of the constituent in 

the total would leach. Owosso collected 

five composite samples of the waste 

between December 2004 and March 

2005 and analyzed them for 

bromomethane and chloromethane 

(SW–846 Method 8260B), cyanide (SW– 

846 Method 9012A), sulfide (SW–846 

Method 9034), antimony and arsenic 

(SW–846 Method 6020B), cadmium, 

chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and 

zinc (SW–846 Method 6010B). This 

subset of constituents was comprised of 

waste constituents detected in prior 

sampling events and the constituents for 

which the waste was listed. 

EPA later asked for additional 

analysis for trichloroethylene (TCE) 

since Owosso’s process includes TCE as 

a graphic image developer and may be 

expected in the waste. Accordingly, 

Owosso collected additional grab 

samples of the waste in November 2007 

for full-scan total volatile analysis (SW– 

846 Methods 5035 & 8260B). TCE was 

detected, however, Owosso had 

replaced the TCE developer with the 

aqueous developing agent by this time. 

To confirm that concentrations of TCE 

in the waste were decreasing since TCE 

was no longer used and only residual 

TCE remained in the process, Owosso 

collected three additional grab samples 

for volatile analysis in April and May of 

2008 (SW–846 Method 5035 & 8260B). 

Owosso collected four composite 

samples of the sludge and one sample 

of the raw product NMP in March 2010. 

The samples were analyzed by a 

modified SW–846 8270 method for 

tentatively identifies compounds (TICs). 

The raw product NMP sample was used 

to determine the NMP retention time in 

order to aid in the analysis of the 

composite samples. The concentration 

of TICs with similar mass spectra and 

retention time to NMP were added to 

the overall concentration because they 

may be derivatives of NMP. 

D. What were the results of Owosso’s 

analysis of its waste? 

The table below presents the 

maximum observed total concentrations 

for all detected constituents for which 

maximum allowable total and leachate 

concentrations were available. Leachate 

concentrations were estimated by 

dividing the total concentration by 20 

(the dilution factor from the TCLP test). 

Total concentrations are expressed in 

milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). 

Leachate concentrations are expressed 

in milligrams per liter (mg/L). Owosso 

submitted a signed statement certifying 

accuracy and responsibility of the 

results. See 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12). 

Constituent detected 

Maximum observed 

concentration 

Maximum allowable 

concentration GW (mg/L) 

Total 1 (mg/kg) TCLP2 (mg/L) Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L) 

Volatile Organic Compounds 

bromomethane ..................................................................... 3.8 0.19 172,000 none 0.026 

chloromethane ..................................................................... 1.9 0.095 none 178 0.39 

n-methyl,2-pyrrolidone ......................................................... 15.79 E 0.79 none 734 1.65 

trichloroethylene ................................................................... 1.1 0.055 975,000 4 0.5 0.005 

Metals 

antimony ............................................................................... 47 2.4 none 3.15 0.006 

arsenic .................................................................................. 2.0 0.10 4,580 3 0.25 3 0.0005 

cadmium ............................................................................... 3.8 0.19 121,000 4 1.0 0.005 

chromium ............................................................................. 35 1.8 5 2,590 4 5.0 0.1 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

67922 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Constituent detected 

Maximum observed 

concentration 

Maximum allowable 

concentration GW (mg/L) 

Total 1 (mg/kg) TCLP2 (mg/L) Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L) 

copper .................................................................................. 1,020 51 none 700 1.3 

cyanide ................................................................................. 20 1.0 none 91 0.2 

lead ...................................................................................... 24 1.2 none 4 5.0 0.015 

nickel .................................................................................... 35 1.8 905,000 400 0.750 

zinc ....................................................................................... 14,000 700 none 6,000 11.3 

1 Converted to dry weight basis. 

2Estimated from the total concentration (Total/20). 

3Set at groundwater concentration corresponding to 1 × 10 ¥5 excess cancer risk. 4Based on the toxicity characteristic in 40 CFR 261 subpart C. 

5Based on assuming 100% hexavalent chromium. 

E—Estimated (Constituent not present in calibration standard. Calculated using total peak area from reconstructed ion chromatogram w/response factor of 1. Concentration converted to dry weight and represents the sum of NMP and NMP-like TICs). 

E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of 

delisting this waste? 

For this delisting determination, we 

assumed that the waste would be 

disposed in a Subtitle D landfill and we 

considered transport of waste 

constituents through ground water, 

surface water and air. We evaluated 

Owosso’s petitioned waste using the 

Agency’s Delisting Risk Assessment 

Software (DRAS) to predict the 

concentration of hazardous constituents 

that might be released from the 

petitioned waste and to determine if the 

waste would pose a threat. To predict 

the potential for release to groundwater 

from landfilled wastes and subsequent 

routes of exposure to a receptor, the 

DRAS uses dilution attenuation factors 

derived from EPA’s Composite Model 

for leachate migration with 

Transformation Products. From a release 

to ground water, the DRAS considers 

routes of exposure to a human receptor 

of ingestion of contaminated ground 

water, inhalation from groundwater 

while showering and dermal contact 

from groundwater while bathing. 

From a release to surface water by 

erosion of waste from an open landfill 

into storm water run-off, DRAS 

evaluates the exposure to a human 

receptor by fish ingestion and ingestion 

of drinking water. From a release of 

waste particles and volatile emissions to 

air from the surface of an open landfill, 

DRAS considers routes of exposure of 

inhalation of volatile constituents, 

inhalation of particles, and air 

deposition of particles on residential 

soil and subsequent ingestion of the 

contaminated soil by a child. The 

technical support document and the 

user’s guide to DRAS are included in 

the docket. 

At a target cancer risk of 1 × 10¥6 and 

a target hazard quotient of 1.0, the 

DRAS program determined maximum 

allowable concentrations for each 

constituent in both the waste and the 

leachate at an annual waste volume of 

244 cubic yards. However, since 

naturally occurring concentrations of 

arsenic are often higher than allowable 

concentrations set by the DRAS at a risk 

of 1 × 10¥6, EPA set the allowable 

concentration of leachable arsenic at a 

target cancer risk of 1 × 10¥5, which 

corresponds to a concentration at the 

point of exposure of approximately one 

twentieth of the existing Safe Drinking 

Water Act (SDWA) Maximum 

Contaminant Level (MCL). Arsenic is 

not expected to be a major constituent 

of concern in this waste. 

We used the maximum estimated 

annual waste volume and the maximum 

reported total and estimated leachate 

concentrations as inputs to estimate the 

constituent concentrations in the 

ground water, soil, surface water or air. 

If, using an appropriate analytical 

method, a constituent was not detected 

in any sample, it was considered not to 

be present in the waste. 

F. What did EPA conclude about 

Owosso’s waste? 

The maximum reported 

concentrations of the hazardous 

constituents found in this waste are 

presented in the table above. The table 

also presents the maximum allowable 

concentrations. The concentrations of 

all constituents in both the waste and 

the leachate are below the allowable 

concentrations. We, therefore, conclude 

that Owosso’s wastewater treatment 

sludge is not a substantial or potential 

hazard to human health and the 

environment when disposed of in a 

Subtitle D landfill. 

We, therefore, propose to grant an 

exclusion for this waste. If this 

exclusion is finalized, Owosso must 

dispose of this waste in a Subtitle D 

landfill permitted or licensed by a state, 

and will remain obligated to verify that 

the waste meets the allowable 

concentrations set forth here. Owosso 

must also continue to determine 

whether the waste is identified in 

subpart C of 40 CFR pursuant to 

§ 261.11(c). 

IV. Conditions for Exclusion 

A. When would EPA finalize the 

proposed delisting exclusion? 

HSWA specifically requires the EPA 

to provide notice and an opportunity for 

comment before granting or denying a 

final exclusion. Thus, EPA will not 

make a final decision or grant an 

exclusion until it has addressed all 

timely public comments on today’s 

proposal, including any at public 

hearings. 

Since this rule would reduce the 

existing requirements for persons 

generating hazardous wastes, the 

regulated community does not need a 

six-month period to come into 

compliance in accordance with section 

3010 of RCRA as amended by HSWA. 

B. How will Owosso manage the waste 

if it is delisted? 

If the petitioned waste is delisted, 

Owosso must dispose of it in a Subtitle 

D landfill which is permitted, licensed, 

or registered by a state to manage 

industrial waste. 

C. What are the maximum allowable 

concentrations of hazardous 

constituents in the waste? 

Concentrations measured in the TCLP 

(or Oily Waste Extraction Procedure, 

where appropriate) extract of the waste 

of the following constituents must not 

exceed the following (mg/l): 

Antimony—3.15; arsenic—0.25; 

cadmium—1; chromium—5; lead—5; 

and zinc—6,000. 

D. How frequently must Owosso test the 

waste? 

Owosso must analyze a representative 

sample of the wastewater treatment 

sludges on an annual basis to 

demonstrate that the constituents of 

concern in the petitioned waste do not 

exceed the concentrations of concern in 

section IV.C above. Owosso must use 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67923 

methods with sufficient analytical 

sensitivity and appropriate quality 

control procedures. SW–846 Method 

1311 must be used for generation of the 

leachate extract used in the testing of 

the delisting levels if oil and grease 

comprise less than one percent of the 

waste. 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. A total analysis of the waste 

(accounting for any filterable liquids 

and the dilution factor inherent in the 

TCLP method) may be used to estimate 

the TCLP concentration as provided for 

in section 1.2 of Method 1311. 

E. What data must Owosso submit? 

Owosso must submit the data 

obtained through annual verification 

testing to U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, 

upon the anniversary of the effective 

date of this exclusion. Owosso must 

compile, summarize, and maintain on 

site records of operating conditions and 

analytical data. Owosso must make 

these records available for inspection. 

All data must be accompanied by a 

signed copy of the certification 

statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12). 

F. What happens if Owosso fails to meet 

the conditions of the exclusion? 

If Owosso violates the terms and 

conditions established in the exclusion, 

the Agency may start procedures to 

withdraw the exclusion. 

If the verification testing of the waste 

does not meet the delisting 

concentrations described in section IV.C 

above or other data (including but not 

limited to leachate data or groundwater 

monitoring data) relevant to the delisted 

waste indicates that any constituent is at 

a concentration in the leachate higher 

than the specified delisting 

concentration, or is in the groundwater 

at a concentration higher than the 

maximum allowable groundwater 

concentration (in the table in Section 

III.D.), Owosso must notify the Agency 

within 10 days of first possessing or 

being made aware of the data. The 

exclusion will be suspended and the 

waste managed as hazardous until 

Owosso has received written approval 

from the Agency to continue the 

exclusion. Owosso may provide 

sampling results which support the 

continuation of the delisting exclusion. 

The EPA has the authority under 

RCRA and the Administrative 

Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et 

seq. to reopen a delisting decision if we 

receive new information indicating that 

the conditions of this exclusion have 

been violated, or are otherwise not being 

met. 

G. What must Owosso do if the process 

changes? 

If Owosso significantly changes the 

manufacturing or treatment process or 

the chemicals used in the 

manufacturing or treatment process, 

Owosso may not handle the wastewater 

treatment sludge generated from the 

new process under this exclusion until 

it has demonstrated to the EPA that the 

waste meets the concentrations set in 

section IV.C and that no new hazardous 

constituents listed in Appendix VIII of 

40 CFR part 261 have been introduced. 

Owosso must manage wastes generated 

after the process change as hazardous 

waste until Owosso has received written 

notice from EPA that the delisting is 

reinstated. 

V. How would this action affect the 

states? 

Because EPA is issuing today’s 

exclusion under the federal RCRA 

delisting program, only states subject to 

federal RCRA delisting provisions 

would be affected. This exclusion may 

not be effective in states which have 

received our authorization 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. These more 

stringent requirements may include a 

provision that prohibits a federally 

issued exclusion from taking effect in 

the state. We urge petitioners to contact 

the state regulatory authority to 

establish the status of their wastes under 

the state law. 

EPA has also authorized some states 

to administer a delisting program in 

place of the federal program, that is, to 

make state delisting decisions. 

Therefore, this exclusion does not apply 

in those authorized states. If Owosso 

manages the waste in any state with 

delisting authorization, Owosso must 

obtain delisting authorization from that 

state before it can manage the waste as 

nonhazardous in that state. 

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 

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, August 10, 1999). Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. 

Similarly, because this rule will affect 

only 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, November 9, 2000). Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. This rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is that the Agency 

used DRAS, which considers health and 

safety risks to children, to calculate the 

maximum allowable concentrations for 

this rule. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. This rule does not involve 

technical standards; thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988, 

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

February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

67924 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 

Hazardous waste, Recycling, and 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority: Section 3001(f) RCRA, 42 

U.S.C. 6921(f). 

Dated: October 26, 2010. 

Bruce F. Sypniewski, 

Acting Director, Land and Chemicals 

Division. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 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, 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—Wastes 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 

TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

Owosso Graphic Arts .. Owosso, Michigan ....... Wastewater treatment sludges, F006, generated at Owosso Graphic Arts (Owosso) facility in 

Owosso, Michigan at a maximum annual rate of 244 cubic yards per year. The sludge 

must be disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized by a state to accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge. The exclusion becomes effective as of [insert final publication date]. 

1. Delisting Levels: (A) The constituent concentrations measured in a leachate extract may 

not exceed the following concentrations (mg/L): antimony—3.15; arsenic—0.25; cadmium— 

1; chromium—5; lead—5; and zinc—6,000. (B) Maximum allowable groundwater concentrations (mg/L) are as follows: antimony—0.006; arsenic—0.0005; cadmium—0.005; 

chromium—0.1; lead—0.015; and zinc—11.3. 

2. Annual Verification Testing: To verify that the waste does not exceed the specified 

delisting concentrations, Owosso must collect and analyze one waste sample on an annual 

basis using methods with appropriate detection concentrations and elements of quality control. SW–846 Method 1311 must be used for generation of the leachate extract used in the 

testing of the delisting levels if oil and grease comprise less than 1 percent of the waste. 

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. A total analysis of the waste (accounting for any 

filterable liquids and the dilution factor inherent in the TCLP method) may be used to estimate the TCLP concentration as provided for in section 1.2 of Method 1311. 

3. Changes in Operating Conditions: Owosso 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. Owosso must handle 

wastes generated after the process change as hazardous until it has: Demonstrated that 

the wastes continue to meet the delisting concentrations in section 1.; demonstrated that 

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

and it has received written approval from EPA. 

4. Data Submittals: Owosso must submit the data obtained through verification testing or as 

required by other conditions of this rule to U.S. EPA Region 5, RCRA Delisting Program 

(LR–8J), 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. The annual verification data and 

certification of proper disposal must be submitted upon the anniversary of the effective 

date of this exclusion. Owosso must compile, summarize, and maintain on site for a minimum of five years records of operating conditions and analytical data. Owosso must make 

these records available for inspection. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of 

the certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12). 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67925 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

5. Reopener Language—(A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, Owosso possesses or is otherwise made aware of any data (including but not limited to leachate data 

or groundwater monitoring data) relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent is at a concentration in the leachate higher than the specified delisting concentration, or is in the groundwater at a concentration higher than the maximum allowable 

groundwater concentration in paragraph (1), then Owosso must report such data, in writing, 

to the Regional Administrator within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of 

that data. (B) Based on the information described in paragraph (A) and any other information received from any source, the Regional Administrator will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires Agency action to protect human 

health or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment. (C) If the Regional Administrator determines that the reported information does require Agency action, the Regional Administrator will notify Owosso in writing of the actions 

the Regional Administrator believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing Owosso with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed Agency 

action is not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. Owosso shall have 30 days 

from the date of the Regional Administrator’s notice to present the information. (D) If after 

30 days Owosso presents no further information or after a review of any submitted information, the Regional Administrator 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 Regional Administrator’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Regional Administrator provides otherwise. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–27886 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2009–0060; MO 

92210–0–0008] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition to List Cirsium wrightii 

(Wright’s Marsh Thistle) as 

Endangered or Threatened 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month 

finding on a petition to list Cirsium 

wrightii (Wright’s marsh thistle) as 

endangered or threatened and to 

designate critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. After review of all available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we find that listing C. wrightii as 

endangered or threatened throughout its 

range is warranted. Currently, however, 

listing of C. wrightii is precluded by 

higher priority actions to amend the 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication 

of this 12-month petition finding, we 

will add C. wrightii to our candidate 

species list. We will develop a proposed 

rule to list C. wrightii as our priorities 

allow. We will make any determination 

on critical habitat during development 

of the proposed rule. In the interim 

period, we will address the status of the 

candidate taxon through our annual 

Candidate Notice of Review. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on November 4, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–R2–ES–2009–0060. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours by contacting the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New 

Mexico Ecological Services Office, 2105 

Osuna NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113. 

Please submit any new information, 

materials, comments, or questions 

concerning this finding to the above 

address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wally ‘‘J’’ Murphy, Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New 

Mexico Ecological Services Field Office 

(see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 505– 

346–4781; or by facsimile at 505–346– 

2542. If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), please call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered 

Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) requires that, for any petition to 

revise the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife that contains 

substantial scientific and commercial 

information that listing may be 

warranted, we make a finding within 

12 months of the date of receipt of the 

petition on whether the petitioned 

action is: (a) Not warranted, (b) 

warranted, or (c) warranted, but the 

immediate proposal of a regulation 

implementing the petitioned action is 

precluded by other pending proposals to 

determine whether species are 

threatened or endangered, and 

expeditious progress is being made to 

add or remove qualified species from 

the Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 

4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we 

treat a petition for which the requested 

action is found to be warranted but 

precluded as though resubmitted on the 

date of such finding, that is, requiring a 

subsequent finding to be made within 

12 months. We must publish these 

findings in the Federal Register. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On October 15, 2008, we received a 

petition from the WildEarth Guardians, 

dated October 9, 2008, requesting that 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS