42440 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: August 9, 2018. 

Frank Brogan, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

For reasons discussed in the 

preamble, and under the authority at 20 

U.S.C. 3474, 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3, Public 

Law 109–270, and Public Law 114–95, 

the Secretary amends Chapter II of title 

34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 200—TITLE I—IMPROVING THE 

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE 

DISADVANTAGED 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 200 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6301 through 6576, 

unless otherwise noted. 

§ 200.7 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 2. Remove and reserve § 200.7. 

§ 200.12 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 3. Remove the center heading ‘‘State 

Accountability System’’ and remove and 

reserve § 200.12. 

§§ 200.13 through 200.22 [Removed and 

Reserved] 

■ 4. Remove the center heading 

‘‘Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)’’ and 

remove and reserve §§ 200.13 through 

200.22. 

§§ 200.27 and 200.28 [Removed and 

Reserved] 

■ 5. Remove and reserve §§ 200.27 and 

200.28. 

§§ 200.30 through 200.53 [Removed and 

Reserved] 

■ 6. Remove the center heading ‘‘LEA 

and School Improvement’’ and remove 

and reserve §§ 200.30 through 200.53. 

■ 7. Revise the center heading 

‘‘Qualifications of Teachers and 

Paraprofessionals’’ to read 

‘‘Qualifications of Paraprofessionals’’. 

§§ 200.55 through 200.57 [Removed and 

Reserved] 

■ 8. Remove and reserve § 200.57. 

§§ 200.59 and 200.60 [Removed and 

Reserved] 

■ 9. Remove and reserve §§ 200.59 and 

200.60. 

§ 200.80 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 10. Remove and reserve § 200.80. 

§ 200.81 [Amended] 

■ 11. In § 200.81, remove and reserve 

paragraphs (d), (f), (g), and (h). 

§ 200.89 [Amended] 

■ 12. In § 200.89, amend the section 

heading by removing the words ‘‘MEP 

allocations;’’ and by removing and 

reserving paragraph (a). 

PART 237—[REMOVED AND 

RESERVED] 

■ 13. Remove and reserve part 237. 

PART 299—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 14. The authority citation for part 299 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3(a)(1), 

6511(a), and 7373(b), unless otherwise noted. 

Subpart B—[Removed and Reserved] 

■ 15. Remove and reserve subpart B, 

consisting of § 299.3. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17480 Filed 8–21–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2017–0556; FRL–9980– 

07—Region 6] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is granting a petition 

submitted by Blanchard Refining 

Company LLC—(Blanchard) to exclude 

(or delist) the residual solids generated 

from the reclamation of oil bearing 

hazardous secondary materials (OBSMs) 

on-site at Blanchard’s Galveston Bay 

Refinery (GBR), located in Texas City, 

Texas from the lists of hazardous 

wastes. EPA used the Delisting Risk 

Assessment Software (DRAS) Version 

3.0.35 in the evaluation of the impact of 

the petitioned waste on human health 

and the environment. The residual 

solids are listed as F037 (primary oil/ 

water/solids separation sludge) when 

they are reclaimed from the OBSMs. 

After careful analysis and evaluation of 

comments submitted by the public, the 

EPA has concluded that the petitioned 

wastes are not hazardous waste when 

disposed of in Subtitle D landfills. This 

exclusion applies to the residuals solids 

generated at Blanchard’s Galveston Bay 

Refinery (GBR), located in Texas City, 

Texas facility. Accordingly, this final 

rule excludes the petitioned waste from 

the requirements of hazardous waste 

regulations under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

when disposed of in Subtitle D landfills 

but imposes testing conditions to ensure 

that the future-generated wastes remain 

qualified for delisting. 

DATES: Effective August 22, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–RCRA–2017–0556. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

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

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information regarding the 

Blanchard Refinery petition, contact 

Michelle Peace at 214–665–7430 or by 

email at peace.michelle@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this section is organized 

as follows: 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA finalizing? 

B. Why is EPA approving this delisting? 

C. What are the limits of this exclusion? 

D. How will Blanchard Refining manage 

the waste if it is delisted? 

E. When is the final delisting exclusion 

effective? 

F. How does this final rule affect states? 

II. Background 

A. What is a delisting? 

B. What regulations allow facilities to 

delist a waste? 

C. What information must the generator 

supply? 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste Data 

A. What waste and how much did 

Blanchard petition EPA to delist? 

B. How did Blanchard sample and analyze 

the waste data in this petition? 

IV. Public Comments Received on the 

proposed exclusion 

A. Who submitted comments on the 

proposed rule? 

B. Comments and Responses 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA finalizing? 

The EPA is finalizing: 

(1) the decision to grant GBR’s 

petition to have its surface 

impoundment basin solids excluded, or 

delisted, from the definition of a 

hazardous waste, subject to certain 

continued verification and monitoring 

conditions; and 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 42441 

(2) to use the Delisting Risk 

Assessment Software to evaluate the 

potential impact of the petitioned waste 

on human health and the environment. 

The Agency used this model to predict 

the concentration of hazardous 

constituents released from the 

petitioned waste, once it is disposed. 

After evaluating the petition, EPA 

proposed rule, on October 31, 2017, to 

exclude GBR’s residuals from the 

treatment of OBSM waste from the lists 

of hazardous wastes under §§ 261.31 

and 261.32. The comments received on 

this rulemaking will be addressed as 

part of this decision. 

B. Why is EPA approving this delisting? 

GBR’s petition requests an exclusion 

from the F037 waste listing pursuant to 

40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. GBR does 

not believe that the petitioned waste 

meets the criteria for which EPA listed 

it. GBR also believes no additional 

constituents or factors could cause the 

waste to be hazardous. EPA’s review of 

this petition included consideration of 

the original listing criteria and the 

additional factors required by the 

Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See 

section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1) 

through (4) (hereinafter, all sectional 

references are to 40 CFR unless 

otherwise indicated). In making the 

initial delisting determination, EPA 

evaluated the petitioned waste against 

the listing criteria and factors cited in 

§ 261.11(a)(2) and (3). Based on this 

review, EPA agrees with the petitioner 

that the waste is non-hazardous with 

respect to the original listing criteria. If 

EPA had found, based on this review, 

that the waste remained hazardous 

based on the factors for which the waste 

was originally listed, EPA would have 

proposed to deny the petition. EPA 

evaluated the waste with respect to 

other factors or criteria to assess 

whether there is a reasonable basis to 

believe that such additional factors 

could cause the waste to be hazardous. 

EPA considered whether the waste is 

acutely toxic, the concentration of the 

constituents in the waste, their tendency 

to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their 

persistence in the environment once 

released from the waste, plausible and 

specific types of management of the 

petitioned waste, the quantities of waste 

generated, and waste variability. EPA 

believes that the petitioned waste does 

not meet the listing criteria and thus 

should not be a listed waste. EPA’s 

proposed decision to delist waste from 

GBR is based on the information 

submitted in support of this rule, 

including descriptions of the wastes and 

analytical data from the Texas City, 

Texas facility. 

C. What are the limits of this exclusion? 

This exclusion applies to the waste 

described in the petition only if the 

requirements described in Table 1 of 

part 261, Appendix IX, and the 

conditions contained herein are 

satisfied. The exclusion applies to 

20,000 cubic yards of residual solids. 

D. How will Blanchard Refining manage 

the waste if it is delisted? 

Storage containers with OBSM 

residual solids will be transported to an 

authorized solid waste landfill (e.g., 

RCRA Subtitle D landfill, commercial/ 

industrial solid waste landfill, etc.) for 

disposal. 

E. When is the final delisting exclusion 

effective? 

This rule is effective August 22, 2018. 

The Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 amended Section 

3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become 

effective in less than six months when 

the regulated community does not need 

the six-month period to come into 

compliance. That is the case here 

because this rule reduces, rather than 

increases, the existing requirements for 

persons generating hazardous wastes. 

These reasons also provide a basis for 

making this rule effective immediately, 

upon publication, under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

F. How does this final rule affect states? 

Because EPA is issuing this exclusion 

under the Federal RCRA delisting 

program, only states subject to Federal 

RCRA delisting provisions would be 

affected. This would exclude two 

categories of States: States having a dual 

system that includes Federal RCRA 

requirements and their own 

requirements, and States who have 

received our authorization to make their 

own delisting decisions. 

Here are the details: We allow states 

to impose their own non-RCRA 

regulatory requirements that are more 

stringent than EPA’s, under section 

3009 of RCRA. These more stringent 

requirements may include a provision 

that prohibits a federally issued 

exclusion from taking effect in the State. 

Because a dual system (that is, both 

Federal (RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) 

programs) may regulate a petitioner’s 

waste, we urge petitioners to contact the 

State regulatory authority to establish 

the status of their wastes under the State 

law. 

EPA has also authorized some States 

(for example, Louisiana, Georgia, 

Illinois) to administer a delisting 

program in place of the Federal 

program, that is, to make State delisting 

decisions. Therefore, this exclusion 

does not apply in those authorized 

States. If Blanchard transports the 

petitioned waste to or manages the 

waste in any State with delisting 

authorization, Blanchard must obtain 

delisting authorization from that State 

before they can manage the waste as 

nonhazardous in the State. 

II. Background 

A. What is a delisting? 

A delisting petition is a request from 

a generator to EPA or another agency 

with jurisdiction to exclude from the list 

of hazardous wastes, wastes the 

generator does not consider hazardous 

under RCRA. 

B. What regulations allow facilities to 

delist a waste? 

Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, 

facilities may petition the EPA to 

remove their wastes from hazardous 

waste control by excluding them from 

the lists of hazardous wastes contained 

in §§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, 

§ 260.20 allows any person to petition 

the Administrator to modify or revoke 

any provision of parts 260 through 266, 

268 and 273 of Title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations. Section 260.22 

provides generators the opportunity to 

petition the Administrator to exclude a 

waste on a ‘‘generator-specific’’ basis 

from the hazardous waste lists. 

C. What information must the generator 

supply? 

Petitioners must provide sufficient 

information to EPA to allow the EPA to 

determine that the waste to be excluded 

does not meet any of the criteria under 

which the waste was listed as a 

hazardous waste. In addition, the 

Administrator must determine, where 

he/she has a reasonable basis to believe 

that factors (including additional 

constituents) other than those for which 

the waste was listed could cause the 

waste to be a hazardous waste, that such 

factors do not warrant retaining the 

waste as a hazardous waste. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste Data 

A. What waste and how much did 

Blanchard petition EPA to delist? 

In June 2017, Blanchard petitioned 

EPA to exclude from the lists of 

hazardous wastes contained in 

§§ 261.31 and 261.32, residual solids 

(F037) generated during reclamation 

activities conducted at its GBR facility 

located in Texas City, Texas. The waste 

falls under the classification of listed 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
42442 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

waste pursuant to §§ 261.31 and 261.32. 

Specifically, in its petition, Blanchard 

requested that EPA grant a conditional 

exclusion for the annual generation 

volume of 20,000 cubic yards of F037 

residual solids. 

The 40 CFR part 261 Appendix VII 

hazardous constituents which are the 

basis for listing can be found in Table 

1. 

TABLE 1—EPA WASTE CODES FOR

OBSM RESIDUAL SOLIDS AND THE

BASIS FOR LISTING

Waste code Basis for listing 

F037 ............... Benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, 

chrysene, lead, chromium. 

B. How did Blanchard sample and 

analyze the waste data in this petition? 

To support its petition, Blanchard 

conducted individual sampling events 

on residual solids resulting from the 

reclamation of Blanchard’s three (3) 

identified categories of OBSMs. Each 

separate sampling event consisted of 

four (4) composite samples taken during 

a 24-hour period of representative 

operation. Each composite sample was 

comprised of individual grab samples 

(i.e., a minimum of four), obtained 

during separate six (6) hour periods of 

the 24-hour sampling event. 

Compositing of samples and 

performance of quality control 

requirements were performed by 

Blanchard’s selected analytical 

laboratory, TestAmerica Laboratories, 

Inc. (‘‘TestAmerica’’). Blanchard 

submitted: Historical information on 

waste generation and management 

practices; and analytical results from 

twelve samples for total and TCLP 

concentrations of constituents of 

concern (COC)s. 

TABLE 2—ANALYTICAL RESULTS/MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATION RESIDUAL SOLIDS BLANCHARD

REFINING COMPANY LLC, TEXAS CITY, TEXAS

Constituent 

Maximum total 

concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Maximum TCLP 

concentration 

(mg/L) 

Maximum TCLP 

delisting level 

(mg/L) 

Acetone ...................................................................................................................... 0.185 0.226 520.0 

Antimony .................................................................................................................... 53.7 0.226 0.599 

Anthracene ................................................................................................................. 0.488 <0.0125 25.993 

Arsenic ....................................................................................................................... 222.0 0.277 0.424 

Barium ........................................................................................................................ 950.0 0.221 36.0 

Benzene ..................................................................................................................... 1.25 <0.00280 0.077 

Benzo (a) anthracene ................................................................................................ 0.512 <0.0106 0.070 

Benzo(a) pyrene ........................................................................................................ 0.0298 <0.0123 2.634 

Benzo (b) flouranthene .............................................................................................. 0.286 <0.0125 22.43 

Beryllium .................................................................................................................... 8.61 0.235 1.764 

Cadmium .................................................................................................................... 0.441 <0.00280 0.217 

Chromium .................................................................................................................. 120.0 0.0550 3.06 

Chrysene .................................................................................................................... 0.272 <0.0103 7.006 

Cobalt ......................................................................................................................... 242.0 0.818 0.902 

Copper ....................................................................................................................... 639.0 <0.0813 21.527 

Cyanide ...................................................................................................................... 99.4 <0.0702 3.08 

Diethyl Phthalate ........................................................................................................ 0.493 <0.0130 990 

Flouranthrene ............................................................................................................. 0.405 <0.0122 2.462 

Flourene ..................................................................................................................... 0.420 <0.00710 4.91 

Lead ........................................................................................................................... 963.0 <0.0219 0.984 

2, methylphenol ......................................................................................................... 1.31 <0.00710 28.952 

3,4 methylphenol ....................................................................................................... 2.18 <0.00675 28.952 

Methylene Chloride .................................................................................................... 0.827 0.00756 0.0790 

Methyl Naphthalene ................................................................................................... 0.365 <0.0129 0.727 

Mercury ...................................................................................................................... 0.0403 0.000104 0.068 

Naphthalene ............................................................................................................... 0.874 <0.0110 0.0327 

Nickel ......................................................................................................................... 29,000 <0.00800 13.5 

Phenanthrene ............................................................................................................ 2.16 <0.0112 10.626 

Phenol ........................................................................................................................ 6.55 0.00813 173 

Pyrene ........................................................................................................................ 1.76 <0.0150 4.446 

Pyridine ...................................................................................................................... 0.197 <0.0108 0.5775 

Selenium .................................................................................................................... 13.5 0.0530 1.0 

Silver .......................................................................................................................... 1.86 <0.0129 5.0 

Toluene ...................................................................................................................... 0.670 <0.00275 15.1 

Tin .............................................................................................................................. 13.8 <0.00590 387 

Thallium ..................................................................................................................... 110.0 0.0220 0.0366 

Vanadium ................................................................................................................... 75, 400 0.215 4.6436 

Zinc ............................................................................................................................ 1920.0 0.487 197 

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

level found in one sample. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 42443 

IV. Public Comments Received on the 

Proposed Exclusion 

A. Who submitted comments on the 

proposed rule? 

The EPA received fifteen anonymous 

public comments on the October 31, 

2017, proposed rule via regulations.gov. 

There were ten comments which had no 

bearing on the delisting of hazardous 

waste for Blanchard Refining. Two 

comments: EPA–R06–RCRA–2017– 

0556–0003 and EPA–R06–RCRA–2017– 

0556–0005 were submitted in favor of 

the issuance of the petition. Comments 

and responses to the three adverse 

comments (EPA–R06–RCRA–2017– 

0556–0009) are addressed below. 

B. Comments and Responses 

General Comment: EPA Region 6 

received ten comments through 

regulations.gov to which no responses 

are required. These comments are 

numbered: EPA–R06–RCRA–2017– 

0556–0002, EPA–R06–RCRA–2017– 

0556–0004, EPA–R06–RCRA–2017– 

0556–0006, EPA–R06–RCRA–2017– 

0556–0007, EPA–R06–RCRA–2017– 

0556–0009, EPA–R06–RCRA–2017– 

0556–0010, EPA–R06–RCRA–2017– 

0556–0011, EPA–R06–RCRA–2017– 

0556–0012, EPA–R06–RCRA–2017– 

0556–0013, and EPA–R06–RCRA–2017– 

0556–0015 in this rulemaking docket. 

These commenters expressed concerns 

regarding wildfires, wind turbines, 

climate change, car lithium batteries, 

and opinions on Lead leaching into 

drinking water which are not 

appropriately addressed as part of the 

Hazardous Waste delisting program. 

Some comments reflect differences in 

opinions or preferred outcomes, to 

which an agency response is not 

appropriate. The EPA acknowledges the 

submission of these comments but notes 

the comments are out of the scope of the 

current final action regarding the 

delisting of hazardous waste residuals 

generated at Blanchard Refining. 

Comment 1 (EPA–R06–RCRA–2017– 

0556–0009): ‘‘I am writing in 

representation of the over 150,000 

members of TinyTimmy.org. We are 

against delisting these Blanchard solid 

hazardous wastes because they do not 

meet the standards stated clearly by the 

EPA for such delisting activity. Many of 

their own test results show a much 

higher than acceptable levels of some of 

the most toxic chemicals known to man. 

This attempt to delist byproducts such 

as Appendix VII inorganic constituents 

of concern, lead and chromium, and 

Appendix VII organic constituents of 

concern benzene, benzo(a)pyrene and 

chrysene. The levels found by 

Blanchard’s testing does not meet the 

EPA criteria for delistment. Further, 

doing so violates human safety, 

groundwater, environment and worker 

health. We strongly urge the EPA to 

reconsider and follow its actual mission 

of protecting the health of both humans 

and the environment and stop giving 

out favors to the fossil fuel industry on 

our backs.’’ 

Response 1 (EPA–R06–RCRA–2017– 

0556–0009). The Delisting Program 

requires extensive waste sampling and a 

risk assessment is performed to assess a 

wastes potential harm to human health 

and the environment. The program is 

designed to insure that the wastes 

which are deemed excluded will not be 

managed in a manner to harm human 

health or the environment. This waste 

will be managed in a Subtitle D 

industrial waste landfill as solid waste 

to prevent releases to groundwater and 

air pathways. 

Comment 2 (EPA–R06–RCRA–2017– 

0556–0014). ‘‘I oppose the petition for 

delisting and believe delisting would 

pose a threat to the public.’’ 

Response 2 (EPA–R06–RCRA–2017– 

0556–0014). The Delisting Program 

requires extensive waste sampling and a 

risk assessment is performed to assess a 

wastes potential harm to human health 

and the environment. The program is 

designed to insure that the wastes 

which are deemed excluded will not be 

managed in a manner to harm human 

health or the environment. This waste 

will be managed in a Subtitle D 

industrial waste landfill as solid waste 

to prevent releases to groundwater and 

air pathways. 

Comment 3 (EPA–R06–RCRA–2017– 

0556–0016). ‘‘I’d like to say thank you 

for opportunity to comment. My 

concern is regarding the delisting 

mandate of the Blanchard Refinery 

residual solid waste stream with 

chemicals that are classifiable as known 

carcinogenicity to human. The EPA is 

basing the ruling on the results from 

DRAS (Hazardous Waste Delisting Risk 

Assessment Software). Per the EPA, ‘‘the 

DRAS is a risk assessment tool and, 

therefore, can only provide risk analyses 

based on the information input into the 

program.’’ Therefore, this software is not 

a dynamic simulation of the site’s actual 

contaminates level but rather a 

‘‘subjective’’ user input simulation. 

Also, the criteria for demonstration of 

health-based levels is the Maximum 

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure (TCLP) delisting level. Does 

this limit cover worksite exposure 

limits? Will rate of evaporation affect 

the TCLP concentration? If so, will there 

be continuous monitoring at the site? 

For example, Cobalt meets the 

Maximum TCLP delisting level criteria 

of 0.902 (mg/L); however, per a New 

Jersey Department of Health and Senior 

Services Hazardous Substance Fact 

Sheet, it does not meet the workplace 

exposure limits.1 

The average airborne permissible 

exposure limits (PEL) according to: 

OSHA: The legal PEL is 0.1 mg/m3 (8- 

hour workshift) 

NIOSH: The recommended PEL is 0.05 

mg/m3 (10-hour workshift) 

ACGIH: The legal PEL is 0.02 mg/m3 (8- 

hour workshift) 

Based on these limits, the maximum 

TCLP is, using the most conservative 

case, 900% higher. Also, according to 

the same study, it is stated that cobalt 

maybe a carcinogen in humans and 

there may be no safe level of exposure 

of exposure to a carcinogen. 

Within the delisted chemicals, I have 

identified multiple chemicals in 

addition to Cobalt that are classifiable as 

known carcinogenicity to human, such 

as benzene and toluene. Since a landfill 

is considered a worksite, the chemicals 

should be reconsidered or the PEL 

considered in the criteria for 

demonstration of health-based levels.’’ 

Response 3 (EPA–R06–RCRA–2017– 

0556–0016). The requirements of the 

Federal regulations defined in 40 CFR 

part 260.20, and 260.22, describe the 

process by which wastes may be 

removed from the list of hazardous 

waste. In addition to extensive quality 

assurance and quality control data for 

the samples taken, EPA performs a risk 

assessment using the Delisting Risk 

Assessment Software to ensure that our 

decision is protective of human health 

and the environment. The constituent 

concentrations found in the residual 

solids are below the concentrations that 

would pose harm to human health and 

the environment. A waste is eligible for 

delisting only if that waste, as generated 

at a particular facility, does not meet 

any of the criteria under which the 

waste was listed as a hazardous waste. 

In addition, the waste may not contain 

any other Appendix VIII constituents 

that would cause the waste to be 

hazardous. RCRA § 3001(f) and 40 CFR 

260.22. A delisting is only intended to 

address a specific waste stream 

generated at a specific site. Since 

individual waste streams may vary 

depending on raw materials, industrial 

processes, and other factors, it may be 

appropriate not to list a specific waste 

from a specific site. Therefore, while a 

waste described in the regulations or 

resulting from the operation of the 

mixture or derived-from rules generally 

is hazardous, a specific waste from an 

individual facility may not be 

hazardous. For this reason, 40 CFR 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
42444 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion 

procedure, called delisting, which 

allows persons to prove that EPA should 

not regulate a specific waste from a 

particular generating facility as a 

hazardous waste. A risk assessment of 

the petitioned waste is completed and is 

a part of the decision factors in issuing 

an exclusion. Specific health 

examinations and worker protection are 

covered by the facility operating plans 

and overseen by OSHA. Worker safety 

during the management of this waste to 

avoid contact with this material are 

covered by the Health and Safety plans 

of the petitioner. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is 

not of general applicability and 

therefore, is not a regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). This 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it 

applies to a particular facility only. 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or 

to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this 

rule will affect only a particular facility, 

it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as specified in 

section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule 

will affect only a particular facility, this 

rule does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’, 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. This action is considered an 

Executive Order 13771 deregulatory 

action. This final rule provides 

meaningful burden reduction by 

allowing the petitioner to manage an 

estimated 20,000 cubic yards of residual 

solids a year under RCRA Subtitle D 

management standards rather than the 

more stringent RCRA Subtitle C 

standards. This action will significantly 

reduce the costs associated with the onsite management, transportation and 

disposal of this wastestream by shifting 

its management from RCRA Subtitle C 

hazardous waste management to RCRA 

Subtitle D nonhazardous waste 

management. 

Similarly, because this rule will affect 

only a particular facility, this rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175, 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. This rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is that the Agency 

used DRAS, which considers health and 

safety risks to children, to calculate the 

maximum allowable concentrations for 

this rule. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

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

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. This rule does not involve 

technical standards; thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988, 

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

February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, 

EPA has taken the necessary steps to 

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 

minimize potential litigation, and 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report which includes a 

copy of the rule to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 804 

exempts from section 801 the following 

types of rules: (1) Rules of particular 

applicability; (2) rules relating to agency 

management or personnel; and (3) rules 

of agency organization, procedure, or 

practice that do not substantially affect 

the rights or obligations of non-agency 

parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not 

required to submit a rule report 

regarding this action under section 801 

because this is a rule of particular 

applicability. Executive Order (E.O.) 

12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) 

establishes Federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main 

provision directs Federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this rule will 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. The 

Agency’s risk assessment did not 

identify risks from management of this 

material in an authorized, solid waste 

landfill (e.g. RCRA Subtitle D landfill, 

commercial/industrial solid waste 

landfill, etc.). Therefore, EPA believes 

that any populations in proximity of the 

landfills used by this facility should not 

be adversely affected by common waste 

management practices for this delisted 

waste. 

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

Waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

6921(f). 

Dated: July 31, 2018. 

Wren Stenger, 

Multimedia Division Director, Region 6. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

■ 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 an entry for ‘‘Blanchard 

Refining Company LLC’’ in alphabetical 

order by facility to read as follows: 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Waste 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 42445 

TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

Blanchard Refining Company LLC.Texas City, TX ................... Residual solids (EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers F037) generated at a maximum 

rate of as 20,000 cubic yards annually. 

For the exclusion to be valid, Blanchard must implement a verification testing program that meets the following Paragraphs: 

(1) All leachable concentrations for those constituents must not exceed the following levels measured as mg/L (ppm). The petitioner must use an acceptable 

leaching method, for example SW–846, Method 1311, to measure constituents in 

the residual solids leachate: 

(A) Inorganic Constituents of Concern: Antimony—0.5985; Arsenic—0.424; Barium—36; Beryllium—1.74; Chromium—3.06; Cobalt—0.902; Lead—0.984; Nickel—13.5; Selenium—1.0; Vanadium—4.64, Zinc—197. Mercury—0.068. 

(B) Organic Constituents of Concern: Acetone—520.0; Anthracene—25.993; Benzene—0.077; Benzo(a)pyrene—2.634, Chrysene—7.006; Methylene Chloride— 

0.0790; Phenanthrene—10.626; Phenol—173; Pyrene—4.446. 

(2) Waste Holding and Handling: 

(A) Blanchard must manage and dispose its residual solids as hazardous waste 

generated under Subtitle C of RCRA, until they have completed verification testing described in Paragraph (3)(A) and (B), as appropriate, and valid analyses 

show that paragraph (1) is satisfied. 

(B) Levels of constituents measured in the samples of the residual solids that do 

not exceed the levels set forth in Paragraph (1) are nonhazardous. Blanchard 

can manage and dispose the nonhazardous residual solids according to all applicable solid waste regulations. 

(C) If constituent levels in a sample exceed any of the delisting levels set in Paragraph (1), Blanchard must retreat or stabilize the residual solids represented by 

the sample exceeding the delisting levels, until it meets the levels in paragraph 

(1). Blanchard must repeat the analyses of the retreated residual solids. 

(3) Verification Testing Requirements: 

Blanchard must perform analytical testing by sampling and analyzing the Residual 

solids as follows: 

(i) Collect representative samples of the Residual solids for analysis of all constituents listed in paragraph (1) prior to disposal. 

(ii) The samples for verification testing shall be a representative sample according 

to appropriate methods. As applicable to the method-defined parameters of concern, analyses requiring the use of SW–846 methods incorporated by reference 

in 40 CFR 260.11 must be used without substitution. As applicable, the SW–846 

methods might include Methods 0010, 0011, 0020, 0023A, 0030, 0031, 0040, 

0050, 0051, 0060, 0061, 1010A, 1020B, 1110A, 1310B, 1311, 1312, 1320, 

1330A, 9010C, 9012B, 9040C, 9045D, 9060A, 9070A (uses EPA Method 1664, 

Rev. A), 9071B, and 9095B. Methods must meet Performance Based Measurement System Criteria in which the Data Quality Objectives are to demonstrate 

that samples of the Blanchard residual solids are representative for all constituents listed in paragraph (1). 

Blanchard must perform sample collection and analyses, including quality control 

procedures, according to SW–846 methodologies. 

(A) Initial Verification Testing: 

After EPA grants the final exclusion, Blanchard must do the following: 

(i) Collect four (4) representative composite samples of the residual solids at weekly intervals after EPA grants the final exclusion. The first composite samples may 

be taken at any time after EPA grants the final approval. Sampling should be 

performed in accordance with the sampling plan approved by EPA in support of 

the exclusion. 

(ii) Analyze the samples for all constituents listed in paragraph (1). Any composite 

sample taken that exceeds the delisting levels listed in paragraph (1) for the residual solids must be disposed as hazardous waste in accordance with the applicable hazardous waste requirements. 

(iii) Within thirty (30) days after successfully completing its initial verification testing, 

Blanchard may report its analytical test data for its initial four (4) weekly composite samples to EPA. If levels of constituents measured in the samples of the 

residual solids do not exceed the levels set forth in paragraph (1) of this exclusion, Blanchard can manage and dispose the non-hazardous residual solids according to all applicable solid waste regulations. 

(B) Subsequent Verification Testing: 

If Blanchard completes initial verification testing requirements, specified in paragraph (3)(A), and no sample contains a constituent at a level which exceeds the 

limits set forth in paragraph (1), Blanchard may begin subsequent verification 

testing as follows: 

(i) Blanchard must test representative composite samples of the residual solids for 

all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at least once per month. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
42446 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

(ii) The samples for the monthly testing shall be a representative composite sample 

according to appropriate methods. 

(iii) Within thirty (30) days after completing each monthly sampling, Blanchard will 

report its analytical test data to EPA. 

(C) Annual Verification Testing: 

If levels of constituents measured in the samples of the residual solids do not exceed the levels set forth in paragraph (1) of this exclusion for six (6) consecutive 

months of subsequent verification testing, Blanchard may begin annual testing as 

follows: 

(i) Blanchard must test representative composite samples of the residual solids for 

all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at least once per calendar year. 

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

according to appropriate methods. 

(iii) Within sixty (60) days after completing each annual sampling, Blanchard will report its analytical test data to EPA. 

(D) Termination of Organic Testing: 

Blanchard must continue testing as required under Paragraph (3)(B) for organic 

constituents in Paragraph (1)(B), until the analytical results submitted under 

Paragraph (3)(B) show a minimum of three (3) consecutive monthly samples 

below the delisting levels in Paragraph (1). Following receipt of approval from 

EPA in writing, Blanchard may terminate organic testing. 

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: 

If Blanchard significantly changes the process described in its petition or starts any 

processes that generate(s) the waste that may or could affect the composition or 

type of waste generated as established under Paragraph (1) (by illustration, but 

not limitation, changes in equipment or operating conditions of the treatment 

process), they must notify EPA in writing. Blanchard may no longer handle the 

residual solids generated from the new process as nonhazardous until they have 

completed verification testing described in Paragraph (3)(A) and (B), as appropriate, documented that valid analyses show that paragraph (1) is satisfied, and 

received written approval from EPA. 

(5) Stabilization Operation: 

Blanchard may periodically elect to modify operating conditions to accommodate 

the addition of chemical stabilization reagents during indirect thermal desorption 

processing. In the event that Blanchard initiates the inclusion of stabilization during operation, they may no longer handle the residual solids generated from the 

modified process as nonhazardous until the residual solids meet the delisting levels set in Paragraph (1) under initial verification testing requirements set in paragraph (3)(A) and verify that the stabilization reagents do not add additional constituents to the residual solid leachate. Following completion of modified operation, Blanchard can resume normal operating conditions and testing requirements under Paragraph (3), which were in place prior to initiating stabilization 

during operation. 

(6) Data Submittals: 

Blanchard must submit the information described below. If Blanchard fails to submit 

the required data within the specified time or maintain the required records onsite for the specified time, EPA, at its discretion, will consider this sufficient basis 

to reopen the exclusion as described in paragraph (7). Blanchard must: 

(A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph 3 to the Section Chief, 6MM–RP, 

Multimedia Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Ave., Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202, within the time specified. All supporting 

data can be submitted on CD–ROM or comparable electronic media. 

(B) Compile records of analytical data from paragraph (3), summarized, and maintained on-site for a minimum of five years. 

(C) Furnish these records and data when either EPA or the State of Texas requests them for inspection. 

(D) Send along with all data a signed copy of the following certification statement, 

to attest to the truth and accuracy of the data submitted: 

‘‘Under civil and criminal penalty of law for the making or submission of false or 

fraudulent statements or representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions of 

the Federal Code, which include, but may not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 

42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify that the information contained in or accompanying this 

document is true, accurate and complete. 

As to the (those) identified section(s) of this document for which I cannot personally 

verify its (their) truth and accuracy, I certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility for the persons who, acting under my direct instructions, 

made the verification that this information is true, accurate and complete. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 42447 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

If any of this information is determined by EPA in its sole discretion to be false, inaccurate or incomplete, and upon conveyance of this fact to the company, I recognize and agree that this exclusion of waste will be void as if it never had effect 

or to the extent directed by EPA and that the company will be liable for any actions taken in contravention of the company’s RCRA and CERCLA obligations 

premised upon the company’s reliance on the void exclusion.’’ 

(7) Reopener: 

(A) If, any time after disposal of the delisted waste Blanchard possesses or is otherwise made aware of any environmental data (including but not limited to 

underflow water data or ground water monitoring data) or any other data relevant 

to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent identified for the delisting 

verification testing is at level higher than the delisting level allowed by the Division Director in granting the petition, then the facility must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or being made 

aware of that data. 

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

meet the delisting requirements in paragraph 1, Blanchard must report the data, 

in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or being 

made aware of that data. 

(C) If Blanchard fails to submit the information described in paragraphs (6), (7)(A) 

or (7)(B) or if any other information is received from any source, the Division Director will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires EPA action to protect human health and/or the environment. Further 

action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate 

response necessary to protect human health and the environment. 

(D) If the Division Director determines that the reported information requires action 

by EPA, the Division Director will notify the facility in writing of the actions the Division Director believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing the facility with an opportunity to present information as to why 

the proposed EPA action is not necessary. The facility shall have 10 days from 

receipt of the Division Director’s notice to present such information. 

(E) Following the receipt of information from the facility described in paragraph 

(7)(D) or (if no information is presented under paragraph (7)(D)) the initial receipt 

of information described in paragraphs (6), (7)(A) or (7)(B), the Division Director 

will issue a final written determination describing EPA actions that are necessary 

to protect human health and/or the environment. Any required action described in 

the Division Director’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless 

the Division Director provides otherwise. 

(8) Notification Requirements: 

Blanchard must do the following before transporting the delisted waste. Failure to 

provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting petition and a possible revocation of the decision. 

(A) Provide a one-time written notification to any state Regulatory Agency to which 

or through which it will transport the delisted waste described above for disposal, 

60 days before beginning such activities. 

(B) For onsite disposal, a notice should be submitted to the State to notify the 

State that disposal of the delisted materials has begun. 

(C) Update one-time written notification, if it ships the delisted waste into a different 

disposal facility. 

(D) Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting exclusion and a possible revocation of the decision. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–17985 Filed 8–21–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES