62040 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, and Volatile organic 

compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: September 28, 2010. 

Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25291 Filed 10–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R03–RCRA–2010–0132; FRL–9211–7] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA, also the Agency or we in 

this preamble) is proposing to grant a 

petition submitted by Babcock & Wilcox 

Nuclear Operations Group, Inc., the 

current owner, and to BWX 

Technologies, Inc., as predecessor in 

interest to the current owner, identified 

collectively hereafter in this preamble as 

‘‘B&W NOG,’’ to exclude (or delist) on a 

one-time basis from the lists of 

hazardous waste, a certain solid waste 

generated at its Mt. Athos facility near 

Lynchburg, Virginia. 

The Agency has tentatively decided to 

grant the petition based on an 

evaluation of specific information 

provided by the petitioner. This 

tentative decision, if finalized, would 

conditionally exclude the petitioned 

waste from the requirements of the 

hazardous waste regulations under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). 

The Agency is requesting comments 

on this proposed decision. 

DATES: To make sure we consider your 

comments on this proposed exclusion, 

they must be received by November 22, 

2010. Comments received after the close 

of the comment period will be 

designated as late. These late comments 

may not be considered in formulating a 

final decision. 

Any person may request a hearing on 

this tentative decision to grant the 

petition by filing a request by October 

22, 2010. The request must contain the 

information prescribed in 40 CFR 

260.20(d). 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

RCRA–2010–0132 by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: friedman.davidm@epa.gov. 

• Mail: David M. Friedman, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region III, Land and Chemicals 

Management Division, Office of 

Technical and Administrative Support, 

Mail Code: 3LC10, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: David M. Friedman, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region III, Land and Chemicals 

Management Division, Office of 

Technical and Administrative Support, 

Mail Code: 3LC10, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029. 

Comments delivered in this manner are 

only accepted during normal hours of 

operation. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–RCRA–2010– 

0132. 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 

that is 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://www/ 

epa/gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the 

index, some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Land and Chemicals Division, Office of 

Technical and Administrative Support, 

Mail Code: 3LC10, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029. The hard 

copy RCRA regulatory docket for this 

proposed rule, EPA–R03–RCRA–2010– 

0132, is available for viewing from 

8 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. You 

may copy material from any regulatory 

docket at a cost of $0.15 per page for 

additional copies. EPA requests that you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. You should 

make an appointment with the office at 

least 24 hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further technical information 

concerning this document or for 

appointments to view the docket or the 

B&W NOG facility petition, contact 

David M. Friedman, Environmental 

Protection Agency Region III, Land and 

Chemicals Division, Office of Technical 

and Administrative Support, Mail Code: 

3LC10, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, 

PA 19103–2029, by calling 215–814– 

3395 or by e-mail at 

friedman.davidm@epa.gov. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 62041 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. Background 

A. What is a listed hazardous waste? 

B. What laws and regulations give EPA the 

authority to delist waste? 

C. What is a delisting petition? 

II. What did B&W NOG request in its 

petition? 

III. Waste-Specific Information 

A. How was the waste generated? 

B. What information did B&W NOG submit 

to support its petition? 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Petition 

A. What method did EPA use to evaluate 

risk? 

B. What other factors did EPA consider in 

its evaluation? 

C. What conclusion did EPA reach? 

V. Conditions for Exclusion 

A. What conditions are associated with this 

exclusion? 

B. What happens if B&W NOG fails to meet 

the conditions of this exclusion? 

VI. How would this action affect states? 

VII. When would the proposed exclusion be 

finalized? 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. What is a listed hazardous waste? 

EPA published amended lists of 

hazardous wastes from non-specific and 

specific sources on January 16, 1981, as 

part of its final and interim final 

regulations implementing Section 3001 

of RCRA. These lists have been 

amended several times, and are found at 

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 40 CFR Part 

261 (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, 

reactivity, and toxicity), or (2) they meet 

the criteria for listing contained in 40 

CFR 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3). 

We also define residues from the 

treatment, storage, or disposal of listed 

hazardous wastes and mixtures 

containing listed hazardous wastes as 

hazardous wastes. (See 40 CFR 

261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i), referred to as 

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

respectively). 

B. What laws and regulations give EPA 

the authority to delist waste? 

Individual waste streams may vary, 

however, depending on raw materials, 

industrial processes, and other factors. 

Thus, while a waste that is described in 

these regulations generally is hazardous, 

a specific waste from an individual 

facility that would otherwise meet the 

listing description may not be. 

For this reason, a procedure to 

exclude or delist a waste was 

established based on the discretionary 

authority of Section 2002(a)(1) of RCRA. 

This procedure is contained in 40 CFR 

260.20 and 260.22 and it allows a 

person to petition EPA or an authorized 

state in order to demonstrate that a 

specific listed waste from a particular 

generating facility should not be 

regulated as a hazardous waste. 

C. What is a delisting petition? 

A delisting petition is a request from 

a facility to EPA or an authorized State 

to exclude waste from the list of 

hazardous wastes on a site-specific 

basis. A facility petitions EPA because 

it does not believe the waste should be 

hazardous under RCRA regulations. 

In a delisting petition, the petitioner 

must show that waste generated at a 

particular facility does not meet any of 

the criteria for which the waste was 

listed. The criteria which EPA uses to 

evaluate a waste for listing are found in 

40 CFR 261.11. An explanation of how 

these criteria apply to a waste is 

contained in the background document 

for that particular listed waste. 

In addition to the criteria that we used 

when we originally listed the waste, a 

petitioner must demonstrate that the 

waste does not exhibit any of the 

hazardous waste characteristics found 

in 40 CFR part 261, subpart C, and must 

present sufficient information for EPA 

to decide whether factors other than 

those for which the waste was listed 

warrant retaining it as a hazardous 

waste as required by Section 3001(f) of 

RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6921(f)) and 40 CFR 

260.22(a). 

Generators remain obligated under 

RCRA to confirm that their waste 

remains nonhazardous based on the 

hazardous waste characteristics even if 

EPA or an authorized state has 

‘‘delisted’’ the waste and to ensure that 

future generated wastes meet the 

conditions set forth. 

II. What did B&W NOG request in its 

petition? 

On September 30, 1994, B&W NOG 

(then known as Babcock and Wilcox) 

petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists 

of hazardous waste listed at 40 CFR 

261.31, both past and currently 

generated sludge produced by its 

wastewater treatment facility. This 

sludge was derived from the treatment 

of wastewaters in the pickle acid 

treatment system and was designated as 

EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006 

(wastewater treatment sludge from 

electroplating operations). On August 9, 

1999 (64 FR 42317), EPA proposed, and 

on January 14, 2000 (65 FR 2337), EPA 

finalized, a conditional exclusion for the 

facility (then known as BWX 

Technologies) delisting the currently 

generated filter cake solids from its 

pickle acid wastewater treatment 

system. 

As explained in EPA’s proposed 

exclusion of August 4, 1999, the 

previously generated sludge was 

classified as a ‘‘mixed waste’’ under 

RCRA. A mixed waste is defined as a 

waste that contains both a radioactive 

component subject to the Atomic Energy 

Act (AEA), and a hazardous component 

subject to RCRA. 

RCRA regulations are promulgated 

under one of two statutory authorities 

which are (1) the original RCRA 

authority (or base program) and (2) the 

Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). The 

hazardous components of mixed wastes 

are subject to RCRA base program 

jurisdiction. Under Section 3006 of 

RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified 

states to administer and enforce the 

RCRA hazardous waste program within 

the state. When new, more stringent 

federal requirements are promulgated or 

enacted, the state is obligated to enact 

equivalent authority within specified 

time frames. New federal requirements 

do not take effect in authorized states 

until the state adopts the requirements 

as state law. 

Up until 1986, the applicability of 

RCRA to mixed waste was unclear. To 

address this issue, EPA issued a 

clarification notice on July 3, 1986 

(51 FR 24504). In that notice, EPA 

announced that the hazardous 

component of mixed waste was subject 

to RCRA jurisdiction and that the 

radioactive portion of the waste (source, 

special nuclear, and by-product 

material) was subject to the Atomic 

Energy Act (AEA). EPA also required 

states which had obtained RCRA base 

program authorization prior to the July 

3, 1986 notice to revise their programs 

to clarify the regulatory status of mixed 

waste (i.e., to include the hazardous 

component of mixed waste in their 

program definition of solid waste), and 

to apply to EPA for authorization of 

their revised program. The 

Commonwealth of Virginia had been 

granted authorization to administer the 

RCRA base program prior to July 3, 

1986. However, when EPA granted the 

above referenced exclusion on January 

14, 2000, Virginia had not been 

specifically authorized for mixed waste. 

In a State which was authorized for 

the RCRA base program, but not 

specifically authorized for mixed waste, 

the waste was not subject to the Federal 

hazardous waste requirements. Mixed 

waste remained outside Federal 

jurisdiction until the State revised its 

program and received authorization 

specifically for mixed waste. Therefore, 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
62042 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

at the time of the January 14, 2000 

exclusion, EPA could not consider the 

previously generated sludge at B&W 

NOG for exclusion. 

The Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality’s (VADEQ’s) 

authorization for the mixed waste 

portion of the RCRA program became 

effective on September 29, 2000. At that 

time, mixed waste in the 

Commonwealth of Virginia became 

subject to Federal RCRA jurisdiction. 

Beginning in May 2001, B&W NOG 

informally submitted information on the 

sludge that was deposited in two on-site 

surface impoundments designated as 

Final Effluent Ponds (FEPs) 1 and 2. 

Because FEP 1 received effluent from 

the low level radioactive waste 

treatment system in the past and FEP 2 

currently receives effluent from the low 

level radioactive waste treatment 

system, the FEP sludge in both units 

includes a Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) regulated 

radioactive component, and therefore, is 

a mixed waste designated as EPA 

hazardous waste No. F006. 

On February 21, 2003, BWX 

Technologies, Inc. petitioned EPA to 

exclude from the lists of hazardous 

waste contained in 40 CFR 261.31 on a 

one-time basis, the sludge which was 

deposited in FEPs 1 and 2 because it 

believed that the petitioned waste did 

not meet any of the criteria for which 

the waste was listed and because there 

were no additional constituents or 

factors that would cause the waste to be 

hazardous. The volume of sludge 

contained in each FEP was, at that time, 

determined to be 6,600 cubic yards, for 

a combined sludge volume of 13,200 

cubic yards. 

On September 3, 2008, B&W NOG 

notified EPA that it had successfully 

completed a sludge removal project at 

FEPs 1 and 2. Sludge was removed from 

these units and disposed of at a mixed 

waste disposal facility permitted under 

the authority of both RCRA and the 

Atomic Energy Act, as amended. B&W 

NOG conservatively estimated that of 

the 13,200 cubic yards of sludge in both 

units, only 148 cubic yards (less than 2 

percent of the original volume) 

remained. In this notification, B&W 

NOG requested that its petition be 

amended to reflect the reduced volume, 

and that the Agency proceed with the 

delisting request based on the new 

volume. 

III. Waste-Specific Information 

A. How was the waste generated? 

B&W NOG is engaged in the 

production and assembly of nuclear 

components primarily for the United 

States government at its Mt. Athos 

facility near Lynchburg, Virginia. This 

activity includes the use of special 

nuclear materials, primarily 

unirradiated enriched uranium. B&W 

NOG’s operations include the recovery 

and purification of scrap uranium and 

uranium downblending. B&W NOG’s 

operations are regulated under Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission License SNM– 

42. 

B&W NOG is primarily a metal 

fabricator (SIC No. 3443), involving the 

fabrication of metal components from 

stock metals through various machining 

processes, welding, grinding, pickling 

and final assembly. Secondary 

operations include the recovery of 

uranium fuel, the research and 

development of uranium fuel 

manufacturing techniques and 

downblending operations. 

Hydrofluoric acid and nitric acid are 

used in combination by B&W NOG in 

the pickling and cleaning of specialty 

metals. Some of these spent pickling 

and cleaning solutions and rinse waters 

are treated on-site in the pickle acid and 

low level radioactive wastewater 

treatment systems. 

Support facilities at the Mt. Athos site 

include a steam plant, process water 

treatment and wastewater treatment 

facilities. 

The Lynchburg Technology Center 

(LTC) houses B&W NOG headquarters, 

B&W Nuclear Power Generation Group, 

Inc. laboratories and B&W Corporate 

Service Centers. Wastewater generated 

at the LTC is piped to the B&W NOG for 

treatment. Solid wastes produced at the 

LTC are delivered to B&W NOG for 

recycling and/or disposal. 

The wastewaters generated at the 

B&W NOG facility are treated in an onsite wastewater treatment plant that 

consists of four discrete wastewater 

treatment systems. They are the low 

level radioactive waste treatment 

system, pickle acid waste treatment 

system, sanitary waste treatment system, 

and water production waste treatment 

system. Once-through non-contact 

cooling water does not require treatment 

and discharges directly to FEP 1. Both 

FEPs have each received a combination 

of these wastewater streams during their 

operating history. 

The FEPs are two surface 

impoundments located adjacent to the 

James River at the B&W NOG Mt. Athos 

site. The FEPs are part of the VADEQ 

permitted industrial wastewater system 

(Virginia Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (VPDES) Permit No. 

VA0003697) and they provide 

equalization of the liquid effluent for 

control of pH and suspended solids. 

B&W NOG’s wastewater 

neutralization processes generate 

precipitation solids which are removed 

by filter presses. The remaining 

suspended solids are discharged with 

wastewater and gradually accumulate in 

the FEPs as sludge. The FEP sludge 

consists in part of suspended solids 

which carry over into the units in the 

effluent from the filter presses that 

remove solids in the pickle acid waste 

treatment system, and additional 

suspended solids which enter the units 

from the low level radioactive, and gritblast wastewater treatment systems. 

FEP 1 was placed in service in 1973, 

with a nominal capacity of 2,000,000 

gallons. FEP 2 was placed in service in 

1979, with a nominal capacity of 

1,900,000 gallons. Although the routing 

of treated wastewaters into these FEPs 

has changed throughout the operating 

history of the units, at some point in 

their history they have both received 

suspended solids from the pickle acid 

treatment system and the low level 

radioactive treatment system, as well as 

various process or sanitary wastewaters. 

It is the pickle acid treatment system 

suspended solids that resulted in the 

formation of F006 sludge prior to the 

January 14, 2000 delisting. 

The current configuration of 

wastewater streams discharged to each 

FEP is as follows: 

FEP 1 receives non-industrial 

processing operations wastewater 

consisting of wastewater from the water 

production (deionized and make-up 

non-contact cooling water) treatment 

system and once through non-contact 

cooling water. 

FEP 2 receives industrial processing 

operations wastewater consisting of 

wastewater from the pickle acid waste 

treatment system, the low level 

radioactive treatment system and the 

grit blast waste treatment system. 

Wastewater from the sanitary waste 

treatment system discharges directly to 

the James River through a VPDES 

permitted outfall. 

B. What information did B&W NOG 

submit to support its petition? 

To provide a comprehensive sludge 

sampling strategy of the FEPs, a twophase sampling and analysis plan was 

implemented by B&W NOG. 

Phase 1 involved the collection of 

fully penetrating core samples of sludge 

from four representative locations in 

each FEP. These samples were analyzed 

for a comprehensive list of chemical 

constituents and other analytical 

parameters, including the 40 CFR Part 

264 Appendix IX (Ground-Water 

Monitoring List) analytes for the metal, 

volatile organic carbon, semivolatile 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 62043 

organic compound, polychlorinated 

biphenyl (PCB), and dioxin/furan 

groups; plus formaldehyde, based on 

process knowledge. Other analytical 

parameters included total cyanide, 

fluoride, oil and grease, sulfide, water 

content, corrosivity and ignitability. The 

sludge characterization included 

analyses for both total concentrations 

and toxicity characteristic leaching 

procedure (TCLP) concentrations. In 

addition to the standard TCLP 

performed on all samples using an 

acidic leaching fluid, one sample from 

each FEP was tested utilizing the TCLP 

procedure but substituting two different 

leaching fluids. The additional leaching 

fluids were: (1) Reagent water with a 

neutral pH; and (2) an alkaline solution 

of sodium bicarbonate and sodium 

carbonate with a pH of 10. 

The Phase 2 chemical characterization 

involved the collection and analysis of 

thirteen independent composite 

samples of sludge, seven from FEP 1 

and six from FEP 2. Each composite 

sample was comprised of continuous 

sludge cores collected from four 

randomly selected locations within a 

10,000 square foot sub-section of the 

unit. Samples were analyzed for an 

abbreviated list of constituents which 

were selected based on the results of the 

comprehensive chemical analyses 

performed on sludge samples collected 

in the Phase 1 chemical 

characterization. The Phase 2 analytes 

were fluoride, 1,2-dichloroethane, 

tetrachloroethane, trichloroethene, 

cadmium, copper, mercury, nickel, 

thallium, PCBs and dioxins/furans. 

The Phase 2 sludge samples were 

analyzed for both total and leachable 

concentrations of each analyte. In Phase 

2, only one leaching test using the TCLP 

procedure was performed for each 

analyte. Each analyte was tested using 

the leaching fluid that produced the 

highest soluble concentration of that 

analyte in the Phase 1 characterization. 

The maximum total constituent and 

maximum leachate concentrations for 

all detected inorganic constituents in 

B&W NOG’s waste samples are 

presented in Table 1. 

The detection limits presented in 

Table 1 represent the lowest 

concentrations quantifiable by B&W 

NOG using appropriate methods to 

analyze the waste. 

TABLE 1—MAXIMUM TOTAL CONSTITUENT AND LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS 1 IN SLUDGE

Inorganic constituents 

Total constituent 

concentration 

(mg/kg) 

TCLP 

Leachate 

concentration 

(mg/l) 

Antimony .......................................................................................................................................................... 1.12 0.002555 

Arsenic ............................................................................................................................................................. 2.56 0.000972 

Barium .............................................................................................................................................................. 52.3 0.355 

Beryllium .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.429 0.00914 

Cadmium .......................................................................................................................................................... 14 0.0323 

Chromium ........................................................................................................................................................ 198 0.132 

Cobalt ............................................................................................................................................................... 2.03 0.0546 

Copper ............................................................................................................................................................. 2390 633 

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 7.73 0.00528 

Mercury ............................................................................................................................................................ 1.7 < 0.00004 

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................... 93.1 2.49 

Selenium .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.447 0.00181 

Silver ................................................................................................................................................................ 148 0.0351 

Thallium ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.544 0.00481 

Tin .................................................................................................................................................................... 279 0.01375 

Vanadium ......................................................................................................................................................... 9.6 0.028 

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 126 1.75 

Cyanide (total) ................................................................................................................................................. 0.245 0.01225 

Fluoride ............................................................................................................................................................ 722 182 

1These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent found in any sample. These levels do not necessarily represent the specific levels found in any one sample. 

< Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the concentration specified in the table. 

The maximum total constituent and 

maximum leachate concentrations for 

all detected organic constituents in 

B&W NOG’s waste samples are 

presented in Table 2. 

The detection limits presented in 

Table 2 represent the lowest 

concentrations quantifiable by B&W 

NOG using appropriate methods to 

analyze the waste. 

TABLE 2—MAXIMUM TOTAL CONSTITUENT AND LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS 1 IN SLUDGE

Organic constituents 

Total constituent 

concentration 

(mg/kg) 

TCLP 

leachate 

concentration 

(mg/l) 

Acetone ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.371 0.212 

Benzene ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.0051 0.0026 

Benzoic acid .................................................................................................................................................... < 4.57 0.0028 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene ...................................................................................................................................... 0.388 < 0.0115 

bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate ................................................................................................................................ 2.265 0.0028 

2-Butanone (methyl ethyl ketone) ................................................................................................................... 0.0544 < 0.01 

Carbon disulfide ............................................................................................................................................... 0.0136 < 0.01 

Carbon tetrachloride ........................................................................................................................................ < 0.0202 0.0024 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
62044 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—MAXIMUM TOTAL CONSTITUENT AND LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS 1 IN SLUDGE—Continued 

Organic constituents 

Total constituent 

concentration 

(mg/kg) 

TCLP 

leachate 

concentration 

(mg/l) 

Chloroform ....................................................................................................................................................... < 0.0202 0.0024 

1,2-Dichloroethane ........................................................................................................................................... < 0.0202 0.0029 

1,1-Dichloroethene ........................................................................................................................................... < 0.0202 0.0026 

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ..................................................................................................................................... 0.0136 < 0.01 

Diethylphthalate ............................................................................................................................................... < 4.57 0.0056 

Diphenylamine ................................................................................................................................................. < 4.57 0.0135 

Fluoranthene .................................................................................................................................................... 3.385 0.0021 

2-Hexanone ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.0253 < 0.01 

1-Methylnaphthalene ....................................................................................................................................... < 4.57 0.0012 

2-Methylnaphthalene ....................................................................................................................................... < 4.57 0.0011 

3-Methylphenol (m-cresol) ............................................................................................................................... < 4.57 0.0017 

4-Nitroaniline .................................................................................................................................................... < 4.57 0.0027 

Total PCBs ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.23 < 0.0084 

Pyrene .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.535 < 0.0115 

2,3,7,8-TCDD 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000035 0.00000000101 

Tetrachloroethene ............................................................................................................................................ 0.220 0.0083 

1,1,1,-Trichloroethane ...................................................................................................................................... < 0.0202 0.0014 

Trichloroethene ................................................................................................................................................ 1.2 0.015 

Trichlorofluoromethane .................................................................................................................................... < 0.0202 0.0011 

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ................................................................................................................................... 0.0232 < 0.01 

m,p-Xylenes ..................................................................................................................................................... < 0.0202 0.0018 

1These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent found in any sample. These levels do not necessarily represent the specific levels found in any one sample. 2For risk assessment of PCDDs and PCDFs compounds, toxicity values are expressed as 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents (TEQs). 

< Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the concentration specified in the table. 

B&W NOG also submitted 

groundwater monitoring data to support 

its delisting request. Three groundwater 

monitoring wells had previously been 

installed to monitor groundwater 

quality in the vicinity of the FEPs as a 

requirement of VPDES Permit No. 

VA0003697, because it was thought that 

constituents from the FEPs may be 

impacting groundwater quality in the 

vicinity of the ponds. An additional 

groundwater monitoring well located 

further downgradient between the 

ponds and the James River was added 

to the monitoring network as a result of 

RCRA corrective action investigations at 

the site. 

Groundwater was sampled by B&W 

NOG over five quarters (starting in 

February 2001) to support this delisting 

request. These samples were analyzed 

for the 40 CFR Part 264 Appendix IX 

(Ground-Water Monitoring List) 

analytes for the metal, volatile organic 

carbon, semivolatile organic compound, 

and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) 

groups. Other analytical parameters 

included total cyanide, fluoride, and 

sulfide. An examination of the results 

shows that several chemicals were 

detected in one or more wells, some 

above an established Agency healthbased level (e.g., a Maximum 

Contaminant Level (MCL) promulgated 

at 40 CFR part 141, pursuant to the Safe 

Drinking Water Act, 41 U.S.C. Section 

300g–1). However, in order to evaluate 

the source of contamination, upgradient 

and downgradient concentrations of 

contaminants were compared. Based on 

an evaluation of this data, it was 

determined that the FEPs are not the 

source of the groundwater 

contamination with one exception. Of 

the constituents that are elevated above 

a health-based level in downgradient 

wells, only fluoride cannot be attributed 

to a contamination source upgradient of 

the FEPs. Fluoride is present at elevated 

levels in all three of the downgradient 

wells and exceeded EPA’s MCL in one 

of these wells with a maximum fluoride 

concentration of 18.1 mg/l. 

EPA requires that petitioners submit 

signed certifications affirming the 

truthfulness, accuracy and completeness 

of the information in their delisting 

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

B&W NOG submitted signed 

certifications stating that all submitted 

information is true, accurate and 

complete. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Petition 

A. What method did EPA use to 

evaluate risk? 

Because the sludge that is the subject 

of this delisting petition contains low 

levels of radioactivity, it is, and if 

delisted by EPA, will remain subject to 

NRC regulations. Although the sludge 

currently resides in the FEPs and will 

continue to do so for many years, the 

FEPs will be subject to NRC 

decommissioning rules when they are 

taken out of service. At that time, any 

sludge remaining in the units will have 

to be removed and disposed of in a 

facility licensed to accept low-level 

radioactive waste. 

We evaluated B&W NOG’s waste 

using the Agency’s Delisting Risk 

Assessment Software Program (DRAS) 

version 3.0 to estimate the potential 

releases of waste constituents and to 

predict the risk associated with those 

releases. DRAS performs a multipathway and multi-chemical risk 

assessment to determine the potential 

impact of a waste disposed of in a 

landfill or surface impoundment. The 

sludge which is the subject of this 

petition is not a liquid, however, it 

currently resides in units that are 

designed as surface impoundments. In 

order to be conservative in our 

evaluation of potential risk, we 

performed an evaluation of this waste 

using the DRAS surface impoundment 

module in addition to the DRAS landfill 

module. The process that we used to 

adapt the sludge data for use in the 

surface impoundment module is 

described in the docket for this 

proposed rule. 

For the DRAS evaluation, we 

considered transport of the hazardous 

waste constituents present in the waste 

through groundwater, surface water and 

air. The evaluation is based on a 

reasonable worst-case (least protective) 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 62045 

disposal scenario for B&W NOG’s 

petitioned waste even though the waste 

will remain subject to more stringent 

NRC disposal regulations. 

DRAS uses a fate and transport model 

to predict the release of hazardous 

constituents from the petitioned waste, 

in order to evaluate the potential impact 

on human health and the environment. 

DRAS accomplishes this using several 

EPA models including the EPA 

Composite Model for Leachate 

Migration with Transformation Products 

(EPACMTP) fate and transport model 

which calculates dilution/attenuation 

factors for evaluating impacts on 

groundwater. From a release to 

groundwater, DRAS considers routes of 

exposure to a human receptor of direct 

ingestion of contaminated groundwater, 

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 runoff, DRAS evaluates 

the exposure to a human receptor by 

ingestion of fish and direct ingestion of 

drinking water. From a release of 

volatile emissions from a surface 

impoundment and waste particles, and 

a release of volatile emissions to the 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 with subsequent ingestion of the 

contaminated soil by a child. 

The volatile emission evaluation in 

the DRAS version 3.0 surface 

impoundment module currently does 

not produce valid results due to an 

operational problem with the software. 

Furthermore, the methodology currently 

used by DRAS to estimate volatile 

emissions does not produce a very 

conservative estimate of average volatile 

emission rates. Therefore, we prepared 

an independent calculation of volatile 

emissions from these surface 

impoundments using the methodologies 

presented in Chapter 5.0 (Surface 

Impoundments and Open Tanks) of the 

EPA report, ‘‘Air Emissions Models for 

Waste and Wastewater,’’ November 

1994, EPA–453/R–94–080A. This report 

can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

chief/software/water/air_emission_

models_waste_wastewater.pdf. Chapter 

5.0 of this report is included in the 

docket for this proposed rule. 

The calculated emission rates were 

then run through a dispersion model to 

estimate downwind concentrations. The 

methodology used is described in 

section 2.3.2.4 (Calculation of 

Downwind Waste Constituent 

Concentration in Air at the POE Surface 

Impoundment) of Chapter 2 of the 

RCRA Delisting Technical Support 

Document. Risk and hazard from these 

estimated downwind concentrations 

were determined using the methods 

presented in Chapter 4 (Risk and Hazard 

Assessment) of the DRAS Delisting 

Technical Support Document. 

For a detailed description of the 

DRAS program, the software itself, the 

Delisting Technical Support Document, 

and the DRAS version 3.0 User’s Guide, 

go to: http://www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/ 

wptdiv/hazardous/delisting/drassoftware.html. 

In addition to the chemical 

constituents contained in the DRAS 

database and whose properties are 

described in the RCRA Delisting 

Technical Support Document, 

Appendix A, Chemical Specific Data, 

three additional constituents were 

detected in B&W NOG’s sludge samples. 

These chemical constituents are 

1-methylnaphthalene, 1,2,4- 

trimethylbenzene, and 2-hexanone. 

These chemicals were added to the 

DRAS database so that they would be 

included in the risk analysis. The 

chemical specific data that we used for 

each of these chemical constituents can 

be found in the docket for this proposed 

rule. 

For constituents which are not 

detected in leachate analysis, DRAS 

requires that the detection limit be 

entered along with the other data. In 

these circumstances, DRAS uses onehalf the detection limit to calculate risk. 

We believe it is inappropriate to 

evaluate constituents which are not 

detected in any sample analyzed if an 

appropriate analytical method was used. 

Similarly, DRAS also predicts 

possible risks associated with releases of 

waste constituents through surface 

pathways (e.g., volatilization or windblown particulate from the landfill). As 

in the groundwater analyses, DRAS uses 

the established acceptable risk level, the 

health-based data, and standard risk 

assessment and exposure algorithms to 

perform this assessment. 

In most cases, because a delisted 

waste is no longer subject to hazardous 

waste regulation, the Agency is 

generally unable to predict, and does 

not presently control, how a petitioner 

will manage a waste after it is excluded. 

Therefore, we believe that it is 

inappropriate to consider extensive sitespecific factors when applying the fate 

and transport model. 

However, as discussed earlier in this 

preamble, the waste that is being 

considered for delisting in this B&W 

NOG petition contains a radioactive 

component and, therefore, will remain 

subject to NRC jurisdiction. 

For a one-time delisting petition, we 

determine cumulative risk. Beginning 

with the leachate and total waste 

concentrations for each constituent in 

the waste (source concentrations), the 

waste volume and exposure parameters 

are used to estimate the upper-bound 

excess lifetime cancer risks (risk) and 

noncarcinogenic hazards (hazard). 

If a delisting evaluation is performed 

for a one-time exclusion, DRAS 

computes the cumulative carcinogenic 

risk by summing the carcinogenic risks 

for all waste constituents for a given 

exposure pathway and then summing 

the carcinogenic risks for each pathway 

analyzed in the delisting risk 

assessment. DRAS also computes the 

cumulative noncarcinogenic hazard by 

summing the Hazard Quotients for all 

waste constituents for a given exposure 

pathway to obtain exposure pathwayspecific Hazard Indices (HIs), and then 

summing the HIs associated with each 

exposure pathway analyzed. 

For a one-time delisting, EPA Region 

III evaluates the cumulative cancer risk 

and cumulative hazard index of the 

petitioned waste. A cumulative cancer 

risk less than 1 × 10¥4 and a cumulative 

hazard index less than or equal to 1 are 

considered to be protective of human 

health and will be considered 

acceptable for this type of delisting 

determination. 

B. What other factors did EPA consider 

in its evaluation? 

We also consider the applicability of 

groundwater monitoring data during the 

evaluation of delisting petitions where 

the petitioned waste is currently 

managed or was once managed in a 

land-based unit (e.g., a landfill or 

surface impoundment). 

We use the results of groundwater 

monitoring data evaluations as a check 

on the reasonable worst case evaluations 

performed, in order to provide an 

additional level of confidence in our 

delisting decisions. Because 

groundwater monitoring data are 

normally descriptive of the impact of 

the petitioned waste under actual 

conditions, and not reasonable worst 

case assumptions, evidence of 

groundwater contamination originating 

from a land-based waste management 

unit may be a factor resulting in petition 

denial. 

Regarding the fluoride in the 

groundwater, B&W NOG makes the 

argument that the fluoride 

concentrations can be attributed to a 

source other than the FEP sludge which 

is the subject of this delisting request. 

As previously discussed in this 

preamble, the FEPs are used as 

equalization ponds for treating 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
62046 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

industrial effluent and are part of B&W 

NOG’s VPDES permitted wastewater 

treatment system that discharges to the 

James River. 

In support of its position that the 

sludge is not the source of the fluoride 

in the groundwater, B&W NOG 

submitted the following two documents 

regarding the chemistry of fluoride: A 

declaration of David W. Griffiths, Ph.D., 

regarding the use and disposition of 

fluorine containing compounds at the 

Mt. Athos site dated February 17, 2003, 

and a white paper on calcium fluoride 

solubility submitted to EPA on July 27, 

2009. Both of these documents can be 

found in the docket for this proposed 

rule. 

Based on the wastewater treatment 

chemistry, B&W NOG has demonstrated 

that the fluoride in the sludge is present 

in the form of calcium fluoride, an 

insoluble precipitate. In contrast, the 

fluoride in the effluent is in a dissolved 

form (sodium fluoride) that can migrate 

through the soil and affect the 

underlying groundwater. The fluoride 

content in this effluent is regulated 

under B&G NOG’s existing VPDES 

permit. The fluoride in the groundwater 

has been evaluated through a sitespecific risk assessment. The actual area 

of fluoride contamination is very 

limited and the conclusion of the risk 

assessment accepted by VADEQ was 

that the risk to human health and the 

environment was so low that no action 

by B&G NOG was required to address 

this contamination. 

C. What conclusion did EPA reach? 

EPA has concluded that the 

information provided by B&W NOG 

provides a reasonable basis to grant 

B&W NOG’s petition. We, therefore, 

propose to grant B&W NOG a one-time 

delisting for the 148 cubic yards of 

petitioned sludge currently residing in 

the FEPs. The data submitted to support 

the petition and the Agency’s evaluation 

show that the constituents in the FEP 

sludge are below health-based levels 

used by the Agency for delisting 

decision-making, and that the sludge 

does not exhibit any of the 

characteristics of a hazardous waste as 

described in 40 CFR part 261 subpart C. 

For this delisting determination, we 

used information gathered to identify 

plausible exposure routes (i.e., 

groundwater, surface water, air) for 

hazardous constituents present in the 

petitioned waste. We applied the DRAS 

described above to predict potential 

concentrations of hazardous 

constituents that may be released from 

the petitioned waste after disposal using 

both the landfill and surface 

impoundment modules. We performed a 

separate and more conservative 

evaluation of volatile emissions from 

surface impoundments using the 

methodology described in the EPA 

report, ‘‘Air Emissions Models for Waste 

and Wastewater’’ (as described earlier in 

this preamble.) We determined the 

potential impact of the disposal of B&W 

NOG’s waste on human health and the 

environment. 

The estimated total cumulative risk as 

calculated using the DRAS landfill 

scenario is 2.5 × 10¥7. The estimated 

total cumulative risk as calculated using 

both the DRAS surface impoundment 

scenario and the methodology in the 

EPA report, ‘‘Air Emissions Models for 

Waste and Wastewater’’ is 2.0 × 10¥6. 

We conclude that these risks are 

acceptable because, for a one-time 

delisting, EPA Region III considers a 

cumulative cancer risk less than 1 × 

10¥4 to be protective of human health. 

The estimated cumulative hazard 

index for this waste as calculated by 

DRAS using the landfill scenario is 4.6 

× 10¥2. The estimated cumulative 

hazard index for this waste as calculated 

using both the DRAS surface 

impoundment scenario and the 

methodology in the EPA report, ‘‘Air 

Emissions Models for Waste and 

Wastewater’’ is 1.3 × 10¥1. We likewise 

conclude that these risks are acceptable 

because, for a one-time delisting, EPA 

Region III considers a cumulative 

hazard index less than or equal to 1 to 

be protective of human health. 

We conclude that the data submitted 

in support of the petition show that the 

waste will not pose a threat when 

relieved of Subtitle C requirements. We, 

therefore, propose to grant B&W NOG’s 

request for a one-time delisting for the 

148 cubic yards of sludge currently 

residing in B&W NOG’s FEPs. 

V. Conditions for Exclusion 

A. What conditions are associated with 

this exclusion? 

The proposed exclusion would apply 

only to the estimated 148 cubic yards of 

sludge currently residing in B&W NOG’s 

FEPs. 

If B&W NOG discovers that a 

condition or assumption related to the 

characterization of this waste that was 

used in the evaluation of this petition is 

not as reported in the petition, B&W 

NOG will be required to report any 

information relevant to that condition or 

assumption in writing to the Regional 

Administrator and the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

within 10 calendar days of discovering 

that condition. 

The purpose of this condition is to 

require B&G NOG to disclose new or 

different information that may be 

pertinent to the delisting. This provision 

will allow us to reevaluate the exclusion 

based on this new information in order 

to determine if our original decision was 

correct. If we discover such information 

from any source, we will act on it as 

appropriate. Further action may include 

repealing the exclusion, modifying the 

exclusion, or other appropriate action 

deemed necessary to protect human 

health or the environment. EPA has the 

authority under RCRA and the 

Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 

551 et seq. (1978), (APA), to reopen the 

delisting under the conditions described 

above. 

In order to adequately track wastes 

that have been delisted, in the event that 

a decision is made to dispose of all or 

of part of the sludge off-site, we will 

require that B&W NOG provide a onetime notification to any state regulatory 

agency to which or through which the 

delisted waste will be transported for 

disposal. B&W NOG will be required to 

provide this notification at least 60 

calendar days prior to commencing 

these activities. Failure to provide such 

notification will be a violation of the 

delisting, and may be grounds for 

revocation of the exclusion. 

B. What happens if B&W NOG fails to 

meet the conditions of this exclusion? 

If B&W NOG violates the terms and 

conditions established in the exclusion, 

the Agency may start procedures to 

withdraw the exclusion, and may 

initiate enforcement actions. 

VI. How would this action affect states? 

This proposed exclusion, if 

promulgated, would be issued under the 

Federal RCRA delisting program. States, 

however, may impose more stringent 

regulatory requirements than EPA 

pursuant to Section 3009 of RCRA. 

These more stringent requirements may 

include a provision which prohibits a 

Federally-issued exclusion from taking 

effect in the State. Because a petitioner’s 

waste may be regulated under a dual 

system (i.e., both Federal (RCRA) and 

State (RCRA) or State (non-RCRA) 

programs), petitioners are urged to 

contact State regulatory authorities to 

determine the current status of their 

wastes under the State laws. 

Furthermore, some States are 

authorized to administer a delisting 

program in lieu of the Federal program 

(i.e., to make their own delisting 

decisions). Therefore, this proposed 

exclusion, if promulgated, may not 

apply in those authorized States, unless 

it is adopted by the State. If the 

petitioned waste is managed in any 

State with delisting authorization, B&W 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 62047 

NOG must obtain delisting 

authorization from that State before the 

waste may be managed as nonhazardous 

in that State. 

VII. When would the proposed 

exclusion be finalized? 

EPA is today making a tentative 

decision to grant B&W NOG’s petition. 

This proposed rule, if made final, will 

become effective immediately upon 

such final publication. 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, if finalized, 

would reduce the existing requirements 

for a facility generating hazardous 

wastes. In light of the unnecessary 

hardship and expense that would be 

imposed on this petitioner by an 

effective date six months after 

publication and the fact that a sixmonth deadline is not necessary to 

achieve the purpose of RCRA Section 

3010, EPA has determined that this 

exclusion should be effective 

immediately upon final publication. 

These reasons also provide a basis for 

making this rule effective immediately, 

upon final publication, under the 

Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 

553(d). 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

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

not of general applicability and 

therefore is not a regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). This 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

applies to a particular facility only. 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

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

to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this 

rule will affect only a particular facility, 

it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as specified in 

section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule 

will affect only a particular facility, this 

proposed rule does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

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

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. Similarly, because this rule 

will affect only a particular facility, this 

proposed rule does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this rule. This rule 

also is not subject to Executive Order 

13045, ‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866, and because the Agency 

does not have reason to believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is that the Agency 

used the DRAS program, which 

considers health and safety risks to 

infants and children, to calculate the 

cumulative carcinogenic and 

noncarcinogenic risk. 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 (EO) 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 proposed 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 a RCRA 

Subtitle D landfill or surface 

impoundment. Therefore, EPA does not 

believe that any populations in 

proximity of the landfills or surface 

impoundments used by this facility 

should be adversely affected by 

common waste management practices 

for this delisted waste. 

List 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: September 24, 2010. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

1. The authority citation for part 261 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 

6922, and 6938. 

2. Table 1 of Appendix IX of Part 261 

is amended to 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 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
62048 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Operations Group, 

Inc., current owner, and BWX Technologies, 

Inc., predecessor in interest to the current 

owner, identified collectively hereafter as 

‘‘B&W NOG’’.

Lynchburg, Virginia ..... Wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating operations (Hazardous Waste Number F006) generated at the Mt. Athos facility 

near Lynchburg, VA and currently deposited in two on-site surface 

impoundments designated as Final Effluent Ponds (FEPs) 1 and 2. 

This is a one-time exclusion for 148 cubic yards of sludge and is effective after (insert publication date of the final rule). 

(1) Reopener language 

(a) If B&W NOG discovers that any condition or assumption related to 

the characterization of the excluded waste which was used in the 

evaluation of the petition or that was predicted through modeling is 

not as reported in the petition, then B&W NOG must report any information relevant to that condition or assumption, in writing, to the 

Regional Administrator and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality within 10 calendar days of discovering that information. 

(b) Upon receiving information described in paragraph (a) of this section, regardless of its source, the Regional Administrator will determine whether the reported condition requires further action. Further 

action may include repealing the exclusion, modifying the exclusion, 

or other appropriate action deemed necessary to protect human 

health or the environment. 

(2) Notification Requirements 

In the event that the delisted waste is transported off-site for disposal, 

B&W NOG must provide a one-time written notification to any State 

Regulatory Agency to which or through which the delisted waste 

described above will be transported at least 60 calendar days prior 

to the commencement of such activities. Failure to provide such notification will be deemed to be a violation of this exclusion and may 

result in revocation of the decision and other enforcement action. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–25319 Filed 10–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2010–0003; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1130] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on 

the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) 

Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed 

BFE modifications for the communities 

listed in the table below. The purpose 

of this notice is to seek general 

information and comment regarding the 

proposed regulatory flood elevations for 

the reach described by the downstream 

and upstream locations in the table 

below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are 

a part of the floodplain management 

measures that the community is 

required either to adopt or to show 

evidence of having in effect in order to 

qualify or remain qualified for 

participation in the National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, 

these elevations, once finalized, will be 

used by insurance agents and others to 

calculate appropriate flood insurance 

premium rates for new buildings and 

the contents in those buildings. 

DATES: Comments are to be submitted 

on or before January 5, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: The corresponding 

preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map 

(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each 

community is available for inspection at 

the community’s map repository. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by Docket No. FEMA–B–1130, to Roy E. 

Wright, Deputy Director, Risk Analysis 

Division, Federal Insurance and 

Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–3461, or (e-mail) 

roy.e.wright@dhs.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy 

E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk 

Analysis Division, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–3461, or (e-mail) 

roy.e.wright@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) proposes to make 

determinations of BFEs and modified 

BFEs for each community listed below, 

in accordance with section 110 of the 

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 

42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). 

These proposed BFEs and modified 

BFEs, together with the floodplain 

management criteria required by 44 CFR 

60.3, are the minimum that are required. 

They should not be construed to mean 

that the community must change any 

existing ordinances that are more 

stringent in their floodplain 

management requirements. The 

community may at any time enact 

stricter requirements of its own or 

pursuant to policies established by other 

Federal, State, or regional entities. 

These proposed elevations are used to 

meet the floodplain management 

requirements of the NFIP and also are 

used to calculate the appropriate flood 

insurance premium rates for new 

buildings built after these elevations are 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1