41604 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R10–RCRA–2018–0661; FRL–9414– 

02–R10] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Final Exclusion for Identifying 

and Listing Hazardous Waste 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) (also, ‘‘the Agency ‘‘or 

‘‘we’’ in this preamble) is granting a 

petition submitted by Emerald Kalama 

Chemical, LLC, in Kalama, Washington 

to exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) up to 3,500 

cubic yards of U019 (benzene) and U220 

(toluene) industrial wastewater 

biological solids (IWBS) per year from 

the list of Federal hazardous wastes 

under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 

13, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–RCRA–2018–0661. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov website. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information may not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(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 

www.regulations.gov. Due to restrictions 

related to COVID–19, docket materials 

are not available in hard copy form at 

this time. If you have further questions 

concerning docket materials, we 

recommend you telephone Dr. David 

Bartus at (206) 553–2804. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

David Bartus, EPA, Region 10, 1200 6th 

Avenue, Suite 155, M/S 15–H04, 

Seattle, Washington 98070; telephone 

number: (206) 553–2804; email address: 

bartus.dave@epa.gov. 

As discussed in Section V of this 

document, the Washington State 

Department of Ecology is making a 

separate but parallel decision regarding 

the Petitioner’s petition under state 

authority. Information on Ecology’s 

action may be found at https://

ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/ 

Permits-certifications/Industrialfacilities-permits/Emerald-KalamaChemical. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this section is organized 

as follows: 

I. Overview Information 

II. EPA’s Evaluation of Public Comments 

III. Final Rule 

A. What are the terms of this exclusion? 

B. When is the delisting effective? 

C. How does this action affect the states? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview Information 

Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC 

located in Kalama, Washington 

submitted a petition to the EPA to 

exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) an annual volume 

of up to 3,500 cubic yards of U019 

(benzene) and U220 (toluene) industrial 

wastewater biological solids (IWBS) 

hazardous waste per year from the list 

of hazardous waste set forth in 40 CFR 

261.33. The EPA published a proposed 

exclusion and request for comment at 87 

FR 3053 (January 20, 2022). After 

consideration of comments received on 

the EPA’s proposed exclusion, the EPA 

is finalizing with certain changes 

responsive to public comment as 

described in the following section. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation of Public 

Comments 

The EPA received six sets of 

comments on the proposed exclusion, 

two of which appear to be duplicate. 

One set of comments was received 

directly by the EPA from the Petitioner 

rather than through regulations.gov. The 

EPA has placed this comment in the 

docket. 

Comment 1. This commenter raised 

issues relating to communicable 

waterborne diseases and impacts on the 

costs of health care. 

Response 1. While the EPA 

appreciates the comment, the EPA lacks 

authority to consider communicable 

disease vectors associated with wastes 

subject to the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act. The commenter also 

recommended that a continuous 

monitoring or audit mechanism along 

with a public communication plan 

through an email or push notification 

should be in place. The EPA notes that 

Condition 3 includes detailed 

verification sampling and analysis 

requirements, and a provision that the 

Petitioner must provide the EPA with an 

annual report containing the results of 

verification testing. These data can be 

made available to interested members of 

the public through the Freedom of 

Information Act. Given this, the EPA 

does not believe that a public 

communications plan as recommended 

is necessary. No changes to the 

proposed exclusion are necessary based 

on this comment. 

Comment 2. This commenter raised 

various issues related to benzene and 

toluene as listed hazardous wastes. The 

first point raised by this commenter 

relates to Table 5 in the proposed 

rulemaking, noting ‘‘Table 5 shows a 

fault in the test sampling. According to 

the outline of the case, Table 5 provides 

the verification of constituents and 

compliance concentrations for the waste 

being addressed.’’ 

The second point raised by this 

commenter states ‘‘in many of the 

materials listed the total constituent 

concentrations exceeded 100%, 

providing inaccurate data.’’ 

The third point raised by the 

commenter raised various issues related 

to sampling and analysis for benzene. 

These include the analytical detection 

limit used as DRAS input, consistency 

between benzene analytical data, testing 

for the characteristic of ignitability, and 

changes in physical state for benzene. 

The commenter noted that DRAS input 

for the detection limit for analysis of a 

TCLP extract of the waste for benzene is 

0.5 mg/l, presumably on the basis of 

Table 1. This model input is used to 

calculate the actual risk of a modelled 

waste stream when analytical data are 

reported as non-detect at a specified 

level of detection. However, this 

number does not reflect the required 

analytical method sensitivity required 

for waste characterization data and for 

verification sampling and analysis—for 

these purposes, the method detection 

limits must be less than the compliance 

value, which for benzene is 0.166 

mg/l for a TCLP extract of the waste. 

The actual waste characterization data 

provided by the Petitioner do in fact 

reflect a level of sensitivity (or detection 

limit) below the compliance value for 

benzene. The EPA does acknowledge 

there is some variability in the 

analytical data for most, if not all 

constituents of concern, which is to be 

expected. For benzene, all of the 

reported data are well below the 

calculated compliance level, and thus 

support the EPA’s conclusion is that the 

candidate waste can be excluded from 

the applicable waste listings, subject to 

required verification sampling. 

The fourth point raised by the 

commentor relates to the Petitioner’s 

sampling of the candidate waste for 

hazardous characteristics (e.g., 

ignitability and toxicity), noting that 

there is no evidence of testing for the 

characteristic of ignitability based on 

the potential presence of benzene. This 

point also noted that benzene may exist 

in multiple physical phases (i.e., solid, 

liquid and gas), such that the 

concentration of benzene in the waste 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 41605 

may vary depending on the state of 

benzene. 

The fifth and final point raised by the 

commentor proposed applying a ‘‘cradle 

to grave’’ approach to the excluded 

waste, on the basis that such an 

approach, including consideration of 

transportation of the excluded waste, 

would be necessary to be protective 

with respect to benzene. 

Response 2. Regarding the first point 

raised by the commentor, the comment 

appears to incorrectly interpret the data 

in Table 5—these data are the output 

from the Delisting Risk Assessment 

Software (DRAS) model and represent 

the maximum allowable concentration 

of constituents of concern in the 

candidate waste for the waste to meet 

the specified risk levels documented in 

Table 1 and thus can be excluded from 

the specific listed waste codes 

documented in the proposed rule. These 

data do not represent the actual 

concentration of any particular sample 

of the candidate waste. As discussed in 

the preamble of the proposed 

rulemaking, the Petitioner provided the 

EPA with extensive sampling and 

analysis of the candidate waste, which 

appear in the docket. The EPA has 

determined that no additional sampling 

of the candidate waste is necessary 

before finalization of the proposed 

exclusion. 

Regarding the second point raised by 

the commentor, this statement applies 

to model output presented in Table 2, 

but not Table 5. See Footnote 2 to Table 

2 and Section IV.B of the proposed 

rulemaking preamble for a more 

detailed discussion of this issue. No 

change is necessary to address this 

second point. 

Regarding the third point raised by 

the commentor, the cited model input is 

used to calculate the actual risk of a 

modelled waste stream when analytical 

data are reported as non-detect at a 

specified level of detection. However, 

this number does not reflect the 

required analytical method sensitivity 

required for waste characterization data 

and for verification sampling and 

analysis—for these purposes, the 

method detection limits must be less 

than the compliance value, which for 

benzene is 0.166 mg/l for a TCLP extract 

of the waste. The actual waste 

characterization data provided by the 

Petitioner do in fact reflect a level of 

sensitivity (or detection limit) below the 

compliance value for benzene. The EPA 

does acknowledge there is some 

variability in the analytical data for 

most, if not all constituents of concern, 

which is to be expected. For benzene, 

all reported data are well below the 

calculated compliance level, and thus 

support the EPA’s conclusion that the 

candidate waste can be excluded from 

the applicable waste listings, subject to 

required verification sampling. No 

change is warranted in response to this 

point. 

Regarding the fourth point raised by 

the commentor, the EPA notes that 

under the hazardous waste exclusion 

regulatory provisions of 40 CFR 260.22, 

a petitioner is not required to 

demonstrate a candidate waste does not 

exhibit a hazardous characteristic– 

rather, this authority is specific to 

granting relief for wastes that designate 

for one or more listed waste numbers, 

but not for characteristic wastes. As 

provided for under 40 CFR 260.22(a)(2), 

however, a waste excluded from 

applicable waste listings may in fact 

continue to be hazardous if it exhibits 

a characteristic. Independent of an 

approved delisting petition, a facility is 

always responsible for demonstrating 

through direct testing or process 

knowledge that the waste does not 

exhibit a hazardous characteristic. The 

EPA notes, however, that since the 

waste characterization data provided by 

the Petitioner document that benzene is 

present only at sub-parts-per-million 

levels, a level far below the 

corresponding toxicity characteristic 

regulatory level and similarly well 

below the level that would cause the 

waste to exhibit the characteristic of 

ignitability, the waste is not expected to 

ever exhibit either characteristic. 

Similarly, the very low concentration of 

benzene strongly supports a conclusion 

that benzene will not appear as a 

separate phase, whether solid or liquid. 

No change is warranted in response to 

this point. 

Regarding the fifth point raised by the 

commentor, the EPA notes that the 

purpose of the DRAS model used as the 

basis for this proposed exclusion is to 

demonstrate that when a candidate 

waste meets the conditions of the 

exclusion, and subject to a reasonable 

worst-case mismanagement scenario, 

the excluded waste does not pose an 

unacceptable risk to human health or 

the environment. In the case of the 

Petitioner’s wastes, the reasonable 

worst-case mismanagement is defined as 

placement in an unlined landfill (See 

Section III.E of the proposed rulemaking 

preamble). Therefore, the EPA does not 

consider the ‘‘cradle to grave’’ approach 

to be necessary. No change is warranted 

in response to this point. 

Comment 3. This commentor noted 

that while the proposed exclusion 

addressed benzene and toluene as listed 

hazardous wastes, benzene may also 

exhibit the toxicity characteristic. The 

commentor further asserted that the 

Petitioner has failed to show how 

benzene ‘‘is suddenly no longer 

displaying such characteristics.’’ The 

commenter acknowledged that benzene 

and toluene in small amounts may not 

cause extreme health reactions but 

noted that if multiple facilities release 

these constituents even in small 

amount, there may be a significant 

aggregate effect on the environment and 

wildlife, specifically including aquatic 

life and the Columbia River. The 

commentor encouraged the EPA to 

protect clean water and the endangered 

and threatened species in the Columbia. 

Finally, the commentor asserted that 

even if the proposed exclusion is 

finalized, facilities would still have to 

apply for permit ‘‘to dump these 

chemicals,’’ creating more work for 

permitting agencies, and questioned 

whether permitting agencies have the 

resources to issue such permits and 

oversee their implementation. 

Response 3. The EPA appreciates and 

shares the commentors concern for the 

environment, wildlife, and the 

Columbia River. In responding to 

questions raised regarding the waste 

potentially exhibiting the toxicity 

characteristic for benzene or toluene, 

please see the discussion of this issue in 

response to Comment 2 above, and the 

language appearing in Section II.B of the 

proposed rulemaking preamble. No 

change is warranted in response to this 

point. 

Regarding the potential impact of 

multiple facilities discharging these 

constituents to the environment, the 

EPA notes this exclusion does not 

authorize discharge of any hazardous 

waste or constituents to the 

environment, and that even if the waste 

is mismanaged will not pose an 

unacceptable risk to health or the 

environment. Finally, the proposed 

exclusion is conditioned on the 

requirement that candidate wastes be 

disposed of in a solid waste landfill 

after the Petitioner demonstrates 

compliance with the exclusion criteria. 

Therefore, the excluded waste will not 

be dumped into the environment, and 

no discharge permits are required or are 

appropriate for management of the 

waste under the conditions of this 

exclusion. No change is warranted in 

response to this point. 

Comments 4 and 5. These two 

comments appear to be duplicative and 

are addressed concurrently. 

In the first point raised by the 

commentor, the commentor objected to 

the proposed changes in the hazardous 

status of U019 (benzene) and U220 

(toluene) and noted the Petitioner 

claims that these chemicals do not meet 

the criteria for which the EPA listed it. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
41606 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

In the second point raised by the 

commentor, the commentor asked what 

assurance is available that the Petitioner 

will provide accurate and evidencebased information. 

Responses 4 and 5. The EPA 

appreciates the concerns raised in this 

comment. With respect to the first point 

raised by the commentor, the 

commentor appears to reflect a 

misunderstanding of the effect of the 

proposed exclusion. The exclusion does 

not at all change the hazardous listing 

status of either benzene or toluene. 

Rather it reflects a determination that 

this candidate waste differs from 

benzene or toluene as listed as a 

discarded commercial chemical 

product, off-specification species, 

container residues or spill residues 

thereof, and that on this basis the 

candidate waste does not warrant 

continued management as a listed 

hazardous waste. The proposed 

exclusion does not in any way affect the 

listed status of benzene or toluene in the 

form of discarded commercial chemical 

compounds. No change is warranted in 

response to this point. 

With respect to the second issue 

raised by the commentor, the EPA will, 

on an on-going basis, critically review 

records that the Petitioner must 

maintain demonstrating satisfaction of 

the conditions of the exclusion, 

including verification sampling and 

analysis. Where necessary or 

appropriate, the EPA may exercise its 

enforcement authorities under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act to evaluate the Petitioners 

compliance with the exclusion, and to 

take such enforcement actions as may be 

necessary or appropriate. No change is 

warranted in response to this point. 

Comment 6. The Petitioner provided 

comments that generally supported the 

proposed exclusion but raised concerns 

with implementation of the proposed 

sampling verification plan. In particular, 

the Petitioner asserted that the proposed 

verification sampling requirements will 

create logistical difficulties and 

inefficiencies and proposed specific 

modifications to the verification 

sampling requirements. 

The first issue raised by the 

Petitioner’s comment focused on the 

proposed requirement to sample IWBS 

at a rate of one sample per every ten 

roll-off boxes. The comment noted that 

this sampling frequency for non-cobalt 

constituents of concern will create 

logistical difficulties due to laboratory 

availability and turnaround time and 

will create a backlog of roll-off boxes 

that cannot be accommodated on-site 

while the Petitioner awaits the sampling 

results. More Specifically, given 

anticipated testing turnaround times, 

sampling results on the 10th bin might 

not be available until the 13th or 14th 

bin has been filled. The Petitioner 

asserted that logistically, it is impossible 

to hold that many bins onsite while 

awaiting results and requested 

clarification on how to handle bins 

awaiting analysis and subsequent bins 

that are filled in the time between 

sampling of the 10th bin and receipt of 

sampling results. 

The second issue raised by the 

Petitioner noted that because there are 

no Washington State accredited 

laboratories to test for acetaldehyde, 

benzaldehyde, and formic acid (as noted 

in the proposed rule’s preamble), the 

EPA is allowing the Petitioner to use 

laboratories that are accredited for other 

analytes to conduct sampling for 

acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, and formic 

acid. However, the Petitioner also stated 

that there are not many labs in 

Washington State that can perform tests 

on the IWBS for acetaldehyde, 

benzaldehyde, and formic acid, 

especially in reasonable proximity to 

the Petitioner’s facility. 

Response 6. With respect to the first 

issue raised by this comment, the EPA 

appreciates the logical concerns raised 

by this comment. In response, the EPA 

agrees to extend the required sampling 

frequency to one sample every 14th bin. 

With this change, the Petitioner may 

sample the 10th bin of each set of 14 

bins but may manage the 11th through 

14th bins according to the results of 

analytical data from the previous set of 

14 bins. That way, results from the 10th 

bin will be available by the time the 

next set of 14 bins begins to be filled, 

eliminating the logistical challenges 

raised by this comment. Given that data 

provided by the Petitioner that for noncobalt constituents, all waste 

constituents are expected to be well 

below the delisting exclusion limits, 

and that sampling of one bin per set of 

14 as described will provide adequate 

assurance of compliance exclusion 

limits. 

With respect to the second issue 

raised by this comment, the EPA 

acknowledges the Petitioner’s concern, 

acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, and formic 

acid are constituents of concern (COCs) 

for the reasons listed in proposed rule’s 

preamble. As such, the EPA believes it 

is appropriate to require testing as 

outlined in the proposed rule. Because 

the EPA is already providing some relief 

by changing the sampling frequency 

from every 10th bin to every 14th bin, 

the EPA expects that the Petitioner will 

need confirmatory laboratory services 

only about 12 times per year. While the 

EPA appreciates the Petitioner’s concern 

that suitable laboratories may not be 

located conveniently close to the 

facility, some additional burden to ship 

samples to a less conveniently located 

laboratory is warranted due to the EPA’s 

determination that acetaldehyde, 

benzaldehyde, and formic acid are 

COCs, and that verification sampling 

data are essential for ensuring full 

compliance with delisting criteria. No 

change is warranted in response to this 

point. 

III. Final Rule 

A. What are the terms of this exclusion? 

EPA is finalizing the proposed 

exclusion based on the Petitioner’s 

petition with certain changes based on 

comments received, as discussed in 

Section II of this preamble. 

B. When is the delisting effective? 

This rule is effective July 13, 2022. 

The Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 amended section 

3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6930(b)(1), 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. This 

rule reduces rather than increases the 

existing requirements and, therefore, is 

effective immediately upon publication 

under the Administrative Procedures 

Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

C. How does this action affect the 

states? 

This exclusion modification is being 

issued under the Federal RCRA 

delisting program. Therefore, only states 

subject to Federal RCRA delisting 

provisions would be affected. This 

exclusion is not effective in states that 

have received authorization to make 

their own delisting decisions. Moreover, 

the exclusion modifications may not be 

effective in states having a dual system 

that includes Federal RCRA 

requirements and their own 

requirements. The EPA allows states to 

impose their own regulatory 

requirements that are more stringent 

than the 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. 

As noted in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking, Ecology is expected to 

make a parallel delisting decision under 

their separate state authority. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 41607 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is exempt from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

because it is a rule of particular 

applicability, not general applicability. 

The action approves a modification of 

an existing delisting petition under 

RCRA for the petitioned waste at a 

particular facility. 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is considered an 

Executive Order 13771 deregulatory 

action. This final rule maintains 

meaningful burden reduction afforded 

by the existing exclusion consistent 

with changes necessary to allow 

management of liquid effluents 

expected from startup and operation of 

Hanford’s Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action 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 only applies to a particular 

facility. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provision of the Regulatory 

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

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1531–1538) and does not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

new enforceable duty on any state, 

local, or tribal governments or the 

private sector. 

G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action 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. 

H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This action applies only to 

a particular facility on non-tribal land. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

I. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. 

J. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

K. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This action does not involve technical 

standards as described by the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272). 

L. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action does 

not have disproportionately high or 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

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

The EPA has determined that this action 

will not have disproportionately high or 

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. 

M. Congressional Review Act 

This action is exempt from the 

Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 

et seq.) because it is a rule of particular 

applicability. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection; Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: July 5, 2022. 

Timothy Hamlin, 

Director, Land, Chemicals and 

Redevelopment Division. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 

261 as follows: 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 261 

continues to read as follows: 

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

6922, 6924(y) and 6938. 

■ 2. Amend table 1 of appendix IX to 

part 261, by adding an entry for 

‘‘Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC’’ in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 

TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

Emerald Kalama Chemical, 

LLC.

Kalama, Washington ............... Wastewater treatment sludges, U019 (benzene) and U220 (toluene), generated at Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC in Kalama, Washington at a 

maximum annual rate of 3,500 cubic yards per year. The sludge must be 

disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise 

authorized by a state to accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge. 

The exclusion becomes effective as of July 13, 2022. 

1. Delisting Levels: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
41608 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

The constituent concentrations in a representative sample of the waste 

must not exceed the following levels. Total concentrations (mg/kg): Cobalt–62,300; Copper–463,000; Nickel–402,000; Benzene–276,000; Formic Acid–145,000. TCLP Concentrations (mg/l in the waste extract): 

Acetaldehyde–8.65; Barium–74.8; Copper–19.0; Nickel–29.2; Zinc– 

426; Benzaldehyde–6.08; Benzene–0.166; Benzoic Acid–5,000; Formic 

Acid–174; Benzyl Alcohol–125; Methanol–2,500; Phenol–375; Toluene–32.6. For the cobalt concentration in an extract of the waste, the 

exclusion is based on a demonstration of being within a cobalt budget 

defined as 2000 yds3-mg/L. The Petitioner must calculate a running 

total starting with the effective date of this exclusion, and for each annual period. The running total shall be the sum of ViCi from i=1 to n, 

where: 

Vi = the volume of each batch in cubic yards (yd3) 

Ci = the concentration of cobalt in a TCLP extract of each batch as 

per Condition 3 of this exclusion (mg/L) 

n = number of batches generated per year 

The Petitioner may conduct analysis for cobalt in an extract of the IWBS 

biosolids using the in-house method documented in ‘‘Cobalt Content In 

Sludge Extract Prepared According to Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure (TCLP Cobalt), Revision 1.0, 11/24/2021 as placed in the 

rulemaking docket. The Petitioner may monitor the quantity of waste in 

each batch on a weight basis, converting to volume using a documented density of 0.67 tons/cubic yard. Provided that the cumulative 

cobalt budget remains less than the limit of 2000 yds3-mg/L each 

batch will be considered in compliance with the exclusion limit for cobalt in an extract of the waste. However, any batch with a cobalt concentration greater than 1.99 mg/l in a TCLP extract of the waste cannot be managed under this exclusion and must remain subject to 

RCRA Subtitle C regulation. For the first year following the effective 

date of this exclusion, the Petitioner shall also document the density of 

IWBS for each batch of IWBS using ASTM Method ASTM E1109–19 

or other equivalent method for purposes of verifying the 0.67 tons/ 

cubic yard density. In addition, the Petitioner shall, on an on-going 

monthly basis, obtain analysis of one spit aliquot of the TCLP extract 

of IWBS biosolids for cobalt from an independent laboratory accredited 

by the Washington State Department of Ecology subject to the provision of Condition 2 below. 

2. Reporting. Within 60 days of each anniversary of the effective date of this 

exclusion, or such other time as the EPA may approve in writing, the Petitioner shall provide a written report to the EPA documenting all data gathered regarding extraction and analysis of the extract for cobalt pursuant to 

the requirements of this exclusion, including the results of IWBS density 

measurement (first year report only) and the independent laboratory data 

for cobalt required by Condition 1. This report must be accompanied by the 

signed certification language appearing at 40 CFR 270.1(d)(1). After review 

of the density data presented in this report, the EPA may provide the Petitioner written approval to use some other numerical density than 0.67 tons/ 

cubic yard for purposes of subsequent implementation of cobalt budget calculations pursuant to Condition 1. Following submission of the first annual 

report, the Petitioner may request relief from the spilt aliquot analysis requirement in Condition 1. Upon receipt of written approval of the request 

from the EPA, the Petitioner will be relieved of the spilt aliquot analysis requirement in Condition 1. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 41609 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

3. Verification Testing: To verify that the waste does not exceed the delisting 

concentrations specified in Condition 1 (except for cobalt), the Petitioner 

must collect and analyze one representative waste sample of every group 

of 14 roll-off boxes of wastewater treatment sludge, with the sample being 

obtained from the 10th box of each group of 14. If this sampling is expected to occur on a weekend or a Federal holiday, the Petitioner may substitute sampling of the 9th or 11th box in each batch of 14 boxes, with sampling of subsequent batches resuming the original schedule of sampling the 

10th roll-off box of each batch of 14 boxes. The Petitioner may manage the 

10th through 14th box of each group of 14 according to the verification 

sampling results of the previous group of 14 boxes pending receipt of 

verification sample results from the 10th box of the current set of boxes. 

The EPA notes that the Washington State Department of Ecology does not 

currently accredit any laboratory in the state of Washington for analysis of 

acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, or formic acid in samples of solid material. 

The EPA will accept laboratory analyses result for acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde and formic acid from a laboratory that otherwise holds accreditations for all other analytes. For cobalt, sampling must occur once per batch 

(as defined by a single roll-off box). All sampling and analysis must be conducted using methods with appropriate detection concentrations and elements of quality control. Sampling data must be provided to the EPA no 

later 60 days following each anniversary of the effective date of this 

delisting, or such later date as the EPA may agree to in writing. No earlier 

than the first anniversary of the effective date of this delisting, the Petitioner 

may request that the EPA approve changes to the sampling frequency 

under this condition. Such a request must include data and analysis that 

demonstrated that the revised sampling frequency will ensure that all 

wastes subject to this exclusion will consistently satisfy the delisting exclusion criteria under Condition 1. The Petitioner must conduct all verification 

sampling according to a written sampling plan and associated quality assurance project plan which is approved in advance by the EPA that ensures 

analytical data are suitable for their intended use. The Petitioner’s annual 

submission must also include a certification that all wastes satisfying the 

delisting concentrations in Condition 1 have been disposed of in a Subtitle 

D landfill which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized by a state to 

accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge. 

4. Changes in Operating Conditions: The Petitioner must notify the EPA in 

writing if it significantly changes the manufacturing process, the chemicals 

used in the manufacturing process, the treatment process, or the chemicals 

used in the treatment process. The Petitioner must handle wastes generated after the process change as hazardous until it has demonstrated 

that the wastes continue to meet the delisting concentrations in Condition 

1, demonstrated that no new hazardous constituents listed in Appendix VIII 

of part 261 have been introduced into the manufacturing process or waste 

treatment process, and it has received written approval from the EPA that it 

may continue to manage the waste as non-hazardous. 

5. Data Submittals: The Petitioner must submit the data obtained through 

verification testing or as required by other conditions of this rule to the Director, Land, Chemical, & Redevelopment Division, U.S. EPA Region 10, 

1200 6th Avenue, Suite 155, M/S 15–H04, Seattle, Washington, 98101 or 

his or her equivalent. The annual verification data and certification of proper 

disposal must be submitted within 60 days after each anniversary of the effective date of this delisting exclusion, or such later date as the EPA may 

agree to in writing. The Petitioner must compile, summarize, and maintain 

on-site for a minimum of five years, records of analytical data required by 

this rule, and operating conditions relevant to those data. The Petitioner 

must make these records available for inspection. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the certification statement in 40 CFR 

260.22(i)(12). If the Petitioner fails to submit the required data within the 

specified time or maintain the required records on-site for the specified 

time, the EPA may, at its discretion, consider such failure a sufficient basis 

to reopen the exclusion as described in paragraph 5. 

6. Reopener Language: (A) If, any time after disposal of the delisted waste, 

the Petitioner possesses or is otherwise made aware of any data relevant 

to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent is at a higher than the 

specified delisting concentration, then the Petitioner must report such data, 

in writing, to the Director, Land, Chemical, & Redevelopment Division, EPA 

Region 10 at the address above, or his or her equivalent, within 10 days of 

first possessing or being made aware of those data. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
41610 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

(B) Based on the information described in Condition 4 or 6(A) and any 

other information received from any source, the EPA will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires 

Agency action to protect human health or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment. 

(C) If the EPA determines that the reported information does require 

Agency action, the EPA will notify the Petitioner in writing of the actions it 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 Petitioner with an opportunity to present 

information as to why the proposed Agency action is not necessary or 

to suggest an alternative action. The Petitioner shall have 30 days 

from the date of the EPA’s notice to present the information. 

(D) If after 30 days the Petitioner presents no further information or after 

a review of any submitted information, the EPA will issue a final written 

determination describing the Agency actions that are necessary to protect human health or the environment. Any required action described in 

the EPA’s determination shall become effective immediately unless the 

EPA provides otherwise. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–15009 Filed 7–12–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R04–RCRA–2022–0395; FRL–9794– 

02–R4] 

Tennessee: Final Authorization of 

State Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final action. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action on the authorization of 

Tennessee’s changes to its hazardous 

waste program under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

These changes were outlined in an 

application to the EPA and correspond 

to certain Federal rules promulgated 

between January 1, 1983, and June 30, 

2021. We have determined that these 

changes satisfy all requirements needed 

for final authorization. 

DATES: This authorization is effective on 

September 12, 2022 without further 

notice, unless the EPA receives adverse 

comment by August 12, 2022. If the EPA 

receives such comment, it will publish 

a timely withdrawal of this direct final 

action in the Federal Register and 

inform the public that this authorization 

will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

RCRA–2022–0395, at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from 

www.regulations.gov. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

The EPA encourages electronic 

submittals, but if you are unable to 

submit electronically or need other 

assistance, please contact Robin 

Billings, the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Please also contact Robin Billings if you 

need assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the www.regulations.gov index. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically in 

www.regulations.gov. For alternative 

access to docket materials, please 

contact Robin Billings, the contact listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robin Billings; RCRA Programs and 

Cleanup Branch; Land, Chemicals and 

Redevelopment Division; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; 

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960; 

telephone number: (404) 562–8515; fax 

number: (404) 562–9964; email address: 

billings.robin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Why is the EPA using a direct final 

action? 

The EPA is publishing this rule 

without a prior proposed rule because 

we view this as a noncontroversial 

action and anticipate no adverse 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1