Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules 25175

before promulgating a rule that includes

a Federal mandate that may result in

expenditures by State, local, and tribal

governments, in aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any 1 year. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for obtaining input

from, informing, educating, and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

affected by the rule.

Under section 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act, EPA must identify and

consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives before

promulgating a rule for which a

budgetary impact statement must be

prepared. The EPA must select from

those alternatives the least costly, most

cost-effective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objective of

the rule, unless EPA explains why a

particular alternative is not selected or

the selection of a particular alternative

is inconsistent with law.

Because this proposed rule does not

impose any new mandates on State,

local, or tribal governments, and the

rule is estimated to result in the

expenditures by State, local, and tribal

governments or the private sector of less

that $100 million in any 1 year, EPA has

not prepared a budgetary impact

statement or specifically addressed the

selection of the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative. Because small governments

will not be significantly or uniquely

affected by this rule, EPA is not required

to develop a plan with regard to small

governments. However, EPA will work

with eligible State and local air

pollution control agencies to assist them

in requesting delegation of authority to

implement and enforce the OCS

regulations.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

These rule revisions do not contain

any information collection requirements

subject to review by the OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44

U.S.C. § 3501, et seq.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

of 1980 requires Federal agencies to

identify potentially adverse impacts of

Federal rules upon small entities. Small

entities include small businesses,

organizations, and governmental

jurisdictions. In instances where

significant economic impacts are

possible on a substantial number of

these entities, agencies are required to

perform a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Furthermore, EPA Guidelines for

Implementing the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, issued on April 9, 1992, require the

Agency to determine whether

regulations will have any economic

impacts on small entities. These

revisions to the OCS regulations do not,

in themselves, impose any requirements

on small entities, nor require or exclude

small entities from meeting the

requirements of the OCS regulations. As

a result, EPA has determined that these

revisions will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

Therefore, as required under § 605 of

the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, I certify that

these revisions do not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 55

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedures,

Air pollution control, Continental shelf,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

oxides, Ozone, permits, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: May 13, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For reasons set out in the preamble,

40 CFR part 55 is proposed to be

amended as set forth below.

PART 55—OUTER CONTINENTAL

SHELF AIR REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 55

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Section 328 of the Clean Air Act

(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) as amended by Public

Law 101–549.

§ 55.2 [Amended]

2. In § 55.2 the introductory text of the

definition of ‘‘Nearest Onshore Area’’ is

proposed to be amended by adding a

comma after ‘‘OCS source’’ and

removing the words ‘‘located within 25

miles of the States’ seaward boundary,’’

which follows.

3. Section 55.3 is proposed to be

amended by revising paragraph (c) to

read as follows:

§ 55.3 Applicability.

* * * * *

(c) The OCS sources located beyond

25 miles of States’ seaward boundaries

shall be subject to all the requirements

of this part, except the requirements of

§§ 55.4, 55.5, 55.12 and 55.14 of this

part.

* * * * *

4. Section 55.6 is proposed to be

amended by revising paragraph (d)(2) to

read as follows:

§ 55.6 Permit requirements.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) * * *

(2) The Administrator or delegated

agency shall not issue a permit to

operate to any existing OCS source that

has not demonstrated compliance with

all the applicable requirements of this

part.

* * * * *

5. Section 55.11 is proposed to be

amended by revising paragraph (a) and

by adding paragraph (j) to read as

follows:

§ 55.11 Delegation.

(a) The governor or the governor’s

designee of any State adjacent to an OCS

source subject to the requirements of

this part may submit a request, pursuant

to section 328(a)(3) of the Act, to the

Administrator for the authority to

implement and enforce the

requirements of this OCS program (i)

within 25 miles of the State’s seaward

boundary and/or beyond 25 miles of the

State’s seaward boundary. Authority to

implement and enforce §§ 55.5, 55.11,

and 55.12 of this part will not be

delegated.

* * * * *

(j) Delegated Authority.

The delegated agency in the COA for

sources located within 25 miles of the

State’s seaward boundary or the

delegated agency in the NOA for sources

located beyond 25 miles of the State’s

seaward boundary will exercise all

delegated authority. If there is no

delegated agency in the COA for sources

located within 25 miles of the State’s

seaward boundary, or in the NOA for

sources located beyond 25 miles of the

State’s seaward boundary, the EPA will

issue the permit and implement and

enforce the requirements of this part.

For sources located within 25 miles of

the State’s seaward boundary, the

Administrator may retain the authority

for implementing and enforcing the

requirements of this part if the NOA and

COA are in different States.

[FR Doc. 96–12627 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 261

[SW–FRL–5507–8]

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for

comment.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is proposing to grant a
25176 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules

petition to Giant Refining Company

(Giant) to exclude (or ‘‘delist’’), on a

one-time basis, certain solid wastes

generated at its facility from the lists of

hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR

261.31 and 261.32 (hereinafter all

sectional references are to 40 CFR

unless otherwise indicated). This action

responds to a delisting petition

originally submitted by the Bloomfield

Refining Company, Inc. (Bloomfield), in

Bloomfield, New Mexico. Bloomfield

was purchased by Giant on October 4,

1995. Giant has advised the Agency that

it wishes to proceed with the petition

for delisting submitted by Bloomfield.

This petition was submitted under 40

CFR 260.20, which allows any person to

petition the Administrator to modify or

revoke any provision of 40 CFR parts

260 through 266, 268 and 273, and

under 40 CFR 260.22, which specifically

provides generators the opportunity to

petition the Administrator to exclude a

waste on a ‘‘generator specific’’ basis

from the hazardous waste lists. This

proposed decision is based on an

evaluation of waste-specific information

provided by the petitioner. If this

proposed decision is finalized, the

petitioned waste will be conditionally

excluded from the requirements of

hazardous waste regulations under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA).

The EPA is also proposing the use of

a fate and transport model (the EPA

Composite Model for Landfills

(EPACML)) to evaluate the potential

impact of the petitioned waste on

human health and the environment,

based on the waste-specific information

provided by the petitioner. This model

has been used in evaluating the petition

to predict the concentration of

hazardous constituents that may be

released from the petitioned waste, once

it is disposed.

DATES: The EPA is requesting public

comments on this proposed decision

and on the applicability of the fate and

transport model used to evaluate the

petition. Comments will be accepted

until July 5, 1996. Comments

postmarked after the close of the

comment period will be stamped ‘‘late.’’

Any person may request a hearing on

this proposed decision by filing a

request with Jane N. Saginaw, Regional

Administrator, whose address appears

below, by June 4, 1996. The request

must contain the information prescribed

in 40 CFR 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Send three copies of your

comments. Two copies should be sent to

William Gallagher, Delisting Program,

Multimedia Planning and Permitting

Division (6PD–O), Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. A third

copy should be sent to the New Mexico

Environment Department, Hazardous

and Radioactive Materials Bureau, 1190

St. Francis Drive, Sante Fe, New Mexico

87502. Identify your comments at the

top with this regulatory docket number:

‘‘F–96–NMDEL–GIANT.’’

Requests for a hearing should be

addressed to the Regional

Administrator, Region 6, Environmental

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas 75202.

The RCRA regulatory docket for this

proposed rule is located at the Region 6,

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202 and

is available for viewing in the EPA

library on the 12th floor from 8:30 a.m.

to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding Federal holidays. Call (214)

665–6444 for appointments. The docket

may also be viewed at the New Mexico

Environment Department, 1190 St.

Francis Drive, Sante Fe, New Mexico

87502. The public may copy material

from any regulatory docket at no cost for

the first 100 pages, and at $0.15 per page

for additional copies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: For

technical information concerning this

notice, contact Michelle Peace, Delisting

Program (6PD–O), Region 6,

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202, (214)

665–7430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Authority

On January 16, 1981, as part of its

final and interim final regulations

implementing Section 3001 of RCRA,

the EPA published an amended list of

hazardous wastes from non-specific and

specific sources. This list has been

amended several times, and is

published in § 261.31 and § 261.32.

These wastes are listed as hazardous

because they typically and frequently

exhibit one or more of the

characteristics of hazardous wastes

identified in Subpart C of Part 261 (i.e.,

ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and

toxicity) or meet the criteria for listing

contained in § 261.11 (a)(2) or (a)(3).

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 meeting the listing description

may not be. For this reason, § 260.20

and § 260.22 provide an exclusion

procedure, allowing persons to

demonstrate that a specific waste from

a particular generating facility should

not be regulated as a hazardous waste.

To have their wastes excluded,

petitioners must show that wastes

generated at their facilities do not meet

any of the criteria for which the wastes

were listed. See § 260.22(a) and the

background documents for the listed

wastes. In addition, the Hazardous and

Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of

1984 require the Agency to consider any

factors (including additional

constituents) other than those for which

the waste was listed, if there is a

reasonable basis to believe that such

additional factors could cause the waste

to be hazardous. Accordingly, a

petitioner also must demonstrate that

the waste does not exhibit any of the

hazardous waste characteristics (i.e.,

ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and

toxicity), and must present sufficient

information for the Agency to determine

whether the waste contains any other

toxicants at hazardous levels. See

§ 260.22(a), 42 U.S.C. § 6921(f), and the

background documents for the listed

wastes. Although wastes which are

‘‘delisted’’ (i.e., excluded) have been

evaluated to determine whether or not

they exhibit any of the characteristics of

hazardous waste, generators remain

obligated under RCRA to determine

whether or not their waste remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste

characteristics.

In addition, residues from the

treatment, storage, or disposal of listed

hazardous wastes and mixtures

containing listed hazardous wastes are

also considered hazardous wastes. See

§§ 261.3 (a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i), referred

to as the ‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derived-from’’

rules, respectively. Such wastes are also

eligible for exclusion and remain

hazardous wastes until excluded. On

December 6, 1991, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

vacated the ‘‘mixture/derived from’’

rules and remanded them to the Agency

on procedural grounds. See Shell Oil

Co. v. EPA, 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir.

1991). On March 3, 1992, EPA

reinstated the mixture and derived-from

rules, and solicited comments on other

ways to regulate waste mixtures and

residues (57 Federal Register (FR)

7628). On December 21, 1995, the EPA

proposed rules related to waste mixtures

and residues at 60 FR 66344 and invited

public comment.

B. Approach Used To Evaluate This

Petition

Giant’s petition requests a delisting

for a listed hazardous waste. In making

the initial delisting determination, the

EPA evaluated the petitioned waste

against the listing criteria and factors
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules 25177

cited in § 261.11 (a)(2) and (a)(3). Based

on this review, the EPA agreed with the

petitioner that the waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original

listing criteria. (If the EPA had found,

based on this review, that the waste

remained hazardous based on the

factors for which the waste was

originally listed, the EPA would have

proposed to deny the petition.) The EPA

then evaluated the waste with respect to

other factors or criteria to assess

whether there is a reasonable basis to

believe that such additional factors

could cause the waste to be hazardous.

The EPA considered whether the waste

is acutely toxic, and considered the

toxicity of the constituents, the

concentration of the constituents in the

waste, their tendency to migrate and to

bioaccumulate, their persistence in the

environment once released from the

waste, plausible and specific types of

management of the petitioned waste, the

quantities of waste generated, and waste

variability.

For this delisting determination, the

EPA used such information to identify

plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground

water, surface water, air) for hazardous

constituents present in the petitioned

waste. The EPA determined that

disposal in a Subtitle D landfill is the

most reasonable, worst-case disposal

scenario for Giant’s petitioned waste,

and that the major exposure route of

concern would be ingestion of

contaminated ground water. Therefore,

the EPA is proposing to use a particular

fate and transport model to predict the

maximum allowable concentrations of

hazardous constituents that may be

released from the petitioned waste after

disposal and to determine the potential

impact of the disposal of Giant’s

petitioned waste on human health and

the environment. Specifically, the EPA

used the maximum estimated waste

volume and the maximum reported

extract concentrations as inputs to

estimate the constituent concentrations

in the ground water at a hypothetical

receptor well downgradient from the

disposal site. The calculated receptor

well concentrations (referred to as

compliance-point concentrations) were

then compared directly to the current

health-based levels at an assumed risk

value of 10-6 used in delisting decisionmaking for the hazardous constituents

of concern.

The EPA believes that this fate and

transport model represents a reasonable

worst-case scenario for disposal of the

petitioned waste in a landfill, and that

a reasonable worst-case scenario is

appropriate when evaluating whether a

waste should be relieved of the

protective management constraints of

RCRA Subtitle C. The use of a

reasonable worst-case scenario results in

conservative values for the compliancepoint concentrations and ensures that

the waste, once removed from

hazardous waste regulation, will not

pose a threat to human health or the

environment. Because a delisted waste

is no longer subject to hazardous waste

control, the EPA is generally unable to

predict and does not presently control

how a waste will be managed after

delisting. Therefore, the EPA does not

currently consider extensive sitespecific factors when applying the fate

and transport model.

The EPA also considers the

applicability of groundwater monitoring

data during the evaluation of delisting

petitions. The EPA normally requests

groundwater monitoring data for wastes

managed on-site to determine whether

hazardous constituents have migrated to

the underlying groundwater.

Groundwater monitoring data provides

significant additional information

important to fully characterize the

potential impact (if any) of the disposal

of a petitioned waste on human health

and the environment. In this case, the

EPA determined that the groundwater

monitoring data was not applicable to

the evaluation of the petitioned waste.

Although Giant’s petitioned waste is

managed in an on-site waste pile, the

EPA Region 6 has not required Giant to

install groundwater monitoring wells

specifically to monitor the waste pile.

Giant does have a monitoring system in

place at its facility, including wells in

the vicinity of the waste pile. However,

the location of these wells were not

selected with the specific intent of

monitoring the waste pile. For these

reasons, the EPA does not believe that

data collected from Giant’s groundwater

monitoring system will provide a clear

measure of whether the waste pile has

adversely impacted groundwater quality

at the Giant site. However, the potential

impact of these wastes on the

groundwater will be predicted through

the application of the EPACML, fate and

transport model.

Finally, the Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments of 1984 specifically

require the EPA to provide notice and

an opportunity for comment before

granting or denying a final exclusion.

Thus, a final decision will not be made

until all timely public comments

(including those at public hearings, if

any) on today’s proposal are addressed.

II. Disposition of Delisting Petition

Giant Refining Company, Bloomfield,

New Mexico

A. Petition for Exclusion

Giant, located in Bloomfield, New

Mexico, is involved in the processing

and refining of petroleum. Giant

petitioned the EPA for an exclusion of

a discrete volume of contaminated soil

presently stored in an on-site waste pile,

generated from the cleaning of two

wastewater treatment impoundments

(referred to as the South and North Oily

Water Ponds) in 1982. The soil is

classified as EPA Hazardous Waste No.

K051—‘‘API separator sludge from the

petroleum refining industry.’’ The listed

constituents of concern for EPA

Hazardous Waste No. K051 are

hexavalent chromium and lead (see Part

261, Appendix VII).

Giant petitioned the EPA to exclude

this discrete volume of excavated soil

because it does not believe that the

waste meets the criteria for which it was

listed. Giant also believes that the waste

does not contain any other constituents

that would render it hazardous. Review

of this petition included consideration

of the original listing criteria, as well as

the additional factors required by the

Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. See

Section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C.

§ 6921(f), and 40 CFR § 260.22(d) (2)–

(4). Today’s proposal to grant this

petition for delisting is the result of the

EPA’s evaluation of Giant’s petition.

B. Background

On April 15, 1991, Bloomfield, now

Giant, petitioned the EPA to exclude,

from the lists of hazardous wastes

contained in 40 CFR § 261.31 and

§ 261.32, a discrete volume of

contaminated soil excavated from its

wastewater treatment impoundments.

Giant subsequently provided additional

information to complete its petition.

Specifically, in its petition, Giant

requested that the EPA grant an onetime exclusion for 2,000 cubic yards of

excavated soil presently stored in an onsite waste pile.

In support of its petition, Giant

submitted: (1) descriptions of its

wastewater treatment processes and the

excavation activities associated with the

petitioned waste; (2) results from total

constituent analyses for the eight

Toxicity Characteristic (TC) metals

listed in § 261.24 (i.e., the TC metals)

antimony, beryllium, cyanide, nickel,

vanadium, and zinc from representative

samples of the stockpiled waste; (3)

results from the Toxicity Characteristic

Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW–846
25178 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Method 1311) for the eight TC metals,

antimony, beryllium, cyanide, nickel,

vanadium, and zinc from representative

samples of the stockpiled waste; (4)

results from the Oily Waste Extraction

Procedure (OWEP, SW–846 Method

1330) for the eight TC metals, antimony,

beryllium, nickel, vanadium, and zinc

from representative samples of the

stockpiled waste; (5) results from the

Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test (EP,

SW–846 Method 1310) for the eight

metals listed in § 261.24 from

representative samples of the stockpiled

waste; (6) results from total oil and

grease analyses from representative

samples of the stockpiled waste; (7) test

results and information regarding the

hazardous characteristics of ignitability,

corrosivity, and reactivity; and (8)

results from total constituent and TCLP

analyses for certain volatile and semivolatile organic compounds from

representative samples of the stockpiled

waste.

Giant is an active petroleum refinery.

In October 1984, Bloomfield purchased

the refinery located in Bloomfield, New

Mexico, from Plateau, Inc., a subsidiary

of Suburban Propane Gas Corporation.

On October 4, 1995, Giant purchased

the refinery from Bloomfield. Giant has

assumed ownership and operation of

the Bloomfield site and wishes to

proceed with the petition for delisting

originally submitted by Bloomfield.

Current refinery operations, including

wastewater treatment, are different than

the operations on-line during the time

period the waste considered in this

petition was generated. During the

period of interest, Plateau operated the

refinery primarily as a producer of

gasoline and diesel fuel. The facility

processed roughly 10,000 barrels per

day of low sulfur crude oil. The refinery

was altered substantially during the

period of time in which the waste was

generated. In 1976, the refinery

consisted of a crude unit with a capacity

of 8,000 barrels per day, a reformer with

a capacity of roughly 2,800 barrels per

day, and required tankage and utilities.

By November 1982, the refinery had

installed a 6,000 barrel per day fluidized

catalytic cracking unit, expanded the

crude unit to 16,500 barrels per day,

installed a wastewater treatment system,

and had added to tankage and utilities.

The refinery experienced no periods of

inactivity during this time.

Prior to November 1982, Plateau

operated two wastewater treatment

surface impoundments; the bottoms of

the two impoundments had been treated

with bentonite to retard migration of

contaminants. These two

impoundments were used to contain

water outflow from an API separator.

The API separator was used to remove

oil and oily sludges from refinery

wastewater and consisted of two

reinforced concrete bays. The API

separator system received wastewaters

from many sources during the time

period of waste generation, including

boiler blowdown; cooling tower

blowdown; desalination water; process

area runoff; small amounts of solvent

cleaners and sealants; and lubricants

used in site vehicles, pump reservoirs,

metal machining tools, instrument air

supplies, and during the overhaul and

rebuilding of various pieces of process

equipment. Oily wastewater entered the

API separator and was contained for a

period of approximately 27 hours (flow

to the API separator averaged roughly 35

gallons per minute during the period of

interest). Oil within the wastewater was

allowed to rise and form a separate

floating phase. This phase was

recovered through a weir at the

downstream end of each bay.

Wastewater from each bay flowed under

the weir, discharging into the first of

two impoundments. Wastewater from

the first impoundment was

subsequently directed through an

outflow pipe to the second

impoundment. In addition, any oily

sludge with a density heavier than the

wastewater sank to the bottom of the

concrete bays. These sludges were

removed and disposed of at a hazardous

waste facility approximately every two

years.

During the period around October and

November 1982, Plateau cleaned the

impoundments to install a 100 milliliter

synthetic high density polyethylene

(HDPE) liner. Approximately 90,000

gallons of sludge were removed by

vacuum truck and disposed of in an

offsite hazardous waste disposal facility.

This sludge was mainly the result of the

accumulation of windblown dirt and

debris. Visibly contaminated soil from

the impoundments was removed and

disposed of in an unlined on-site

landfill in October 1984. This landfill

was a dedicated area of the Giant site,

and did not hold any other waste

material. Plateau assumed this material

was not hazardous based on

characteristic testing. As part of

subsequent closure activities, the

contaminated soil was reexcavated in

November 1989 and stockpiled at its

present location, where it awaits final

disposal. This volume of stockpiled soil

is the subject of Giant’s delisting

petition.

The impoundments were originally

installed about 1974 for fresh water use.

Following the installation of the API

separator in late 1976, wastewater from

the API separator was routed to the

impoundments for further wastewater

treatment. Prior to the installation of the

API separator, a tank was used to

recover oil from wastewater. The API

separator was installed because of

substantial expansion planned and

underway for the refinery. Therefore,

the period of generation of waste

sludges into the impoundments (and,

therefore, the generation of the

contaminated soil) was from late 1976

until the impoundments were cleaned

in November 1982.

The stockpiled waste has a moisture

content of roughly 25 percent. The

waste does not contain any free liquids

or liquid petroleum. The stockpiled

waste consists only of the waste that

was originally deposited in the landfill

from the impoundments and a small

amount of soils adjacent to the landfill

that was removed during the November

1989 excavation activities.

To collect representative samples

from a waste pile like Giant’s,

petitioners are normally requested to

divide the unit into four quadrants (not

exceeding 10,000 square feet per

quadrant) and randomly collect five

full-depth core samples from each

quadrant. The five full-depth core

samples are then composited (mixed) by

quadrant to produce a total of four

composite samples. See Test Methods

for Evaluating Solid Wastes: Physical/

Chemical Methods, EPA, Office of Solid

Waste and Emergency Response,

Publication SW–846 (third edition),

November 1986, and Petitions to Delist

Hazardous Wastes—A Guidance

Manual, (second edition), EPA, Office of

Solid Waste, (EPA/530–R–93–007),

March 1993.

The first sampling and analysis of the

stockpiled waste took place in May

1990. Two samples of waste were

gathered over the full depth of the waste

pile, from the surface to the bottom of

the waste pile. This was accomplished

by cutting trenches into the waste pile

using a backhoe and gathering

composite samples, with a trowel, from

ten locations within each trench

spanning the entire depth of the trench.

To form a composite from the west side

of the waste pile, ten samples each from

six trenches were mixed in a bucket (for

a total of 60 samples). The same

procedure was followed in forming a

composite from the east side of the

waste pile. These two composite

samples were analyzed for the total

concentrations (i.e., mass of a particular

constituent per mass of waste) of the

eight TCLP metals, nickel, antimony,

beryllium, vanadium, selected volatile

and semi-volatile organic constituents,

and oil and grease content. These two

samples were also analyzed to
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules 25179

1The Oily Waste Extraction Procedure (OWEP) is

a leach test used to determine the mobile metal

concentration in oily wastes. The OWEP simulates

biodegradation that has occurred in the landfill.

The oil in the wastes, which tends to bind complex

metals such that they are not available for leaching,

degrades in the landfill disposal environment,

eventually resulting in the release of the metals into

the underlying strata and ground water. Per the EPA

instructions, Bloomfield modified the OWEP by

substituting the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching

Procedure (TCLP) for the Extraction Procedure (EP)

in step 7.10 of the OWEP method.

determine whether the waste exhibited

ignitable, corrosive, or reactive

properties as defined, respectively,

under § 261.21, § 261.22, and § 261.23,

including analysis for total constituent

concentrations of cyanide, sulfide,

reactive cyanide, and reactive sulfide.

These two samples were also analyzed

for TCLP concentrations (i.e., mass of a

particular constituent per unit volume

of extract) of the eight TC metals, nickel,

and selected volatile and semi-volatile

organic constituents. Finally, these two

samples were analyzed for EP toxicity

concentrations of the eight metals listed

in § 261.24.

To highlight any possible variance of

the outer material due to weathering, a

third composite sample was formed

from samples taken from eight locations

across the surface of the waste pile. The

maximum depth sampled was twelve

inches. This composite sample was

subject to the same analyses as the other

two composite samples. In August 1990,

Giant collected three samples, one

sample each from the west side, east

side, and surface of the waste pile.

These samples were analyzed for TCLP

concentrations of selected semi-volatile

constituents.

Giant claims that because the waste

pile was subjected to several operations

that would have mixed the waste to a

significant extent, including dredging of

the wastewater treatment

impoundments; loading and

transporting the waste; unloading and

spreading the waste in the landfill;

reexcavating, loading and transporting

the waste; and spreading and contouring

the waste, the analytical data obtained

from the two composite samples are

representative of any variation in the

waste pile concentrations. Based on its

review of information describing this

sampling event, the EPA concluded that

these samples were not sufficient to

support a delisting determination in

part, because only two of the samples

represented the full depth of the waste

pile. At the request of the EPA, Giant

submitted an addendum to its delisting

petition. This addendum, submitted on

June 25, 1993, included results from the

analysis of four additional samples of

the petitioned waste. Four waste

samples were collected from the waste

pile at the Giant facility in April 1993.

The waste pile was divided into four

quadrants and four full-depth core

samples were collected from each

quadrant.

All four samples were analyzed for

total constituent concentrations of the

TC metals, antimony, beryllium,

cyanide, nickel, sulfide, vanadium, zinc,

reactive cyanide, and reactive sulfide.

The four composite samples were also

analyzed for oil and grease content and

leachate concentrations (using the TCLP

and OWEP) of the TC metals, antimony,

beryllium, cyanide, nickel, vanadium,

and zinc (using distilled water in the

cyanide extraction). An aliquot of the

full-depth core sample was removed

and analyzed for total constituent and

TCLP leachate concentrations of

selected volatile organic constituents. In

addition, the remainder of the sample

was composited and analyzed for total

constituent and TCLP leachate

concentrations of selected semi-volatile

organic constituents.

C. Agency Analysis

Giant used SW–846 Methods 7041

through 7740 to quantify the total

constituent concentrations of antimony,

arsenic, lead, mercury, and selenium;

and SW–846 Method 6010 to quantify

total constituent concentrations of

barium, beryllium, cadmium,

chromium, nickel, silver, vanadium,

and zinc in the 1990 and 1993 samples.

Giant used SW–846 Methods 9010

(modified) to quantify the total

constituent concentrations of cyanide in

the 1990 and 1993 samples. Giant used

Methods 7.3.4.2 and 9030 modified to

quantify the total constituent

concentrations of sulfide, respectively,

in the 1990 and 1993 samples.

Using modified SW 846 Method 9071,

Giant determined that the petitioned

waste had a maximum oil and grease

content of 2.35 percent. Two composite

samples of the waste had more than one

percent oil and grease. The leachate

analyses for one sample extract (as

discussed below) was modified in

accordance with the OWEP

methodology. The leachate analysis for

the other sample extract was not

modified, as the laboratory had already

conducted the TCLP without filtration

difficulties. Wastes having more than

one percent total oil and grease may

either have significant concentrations of

constituents of concern in the oil phase,

which may not be assessed using the

standard leachate procedures, or the

concentration of oil and grease may be

sufficient to coat the solid phase of the

sample and interfere with the leaching

of metals from the sample.

Giant used SW–846 Method 1311

(TCLP)/Method 6010 to quantify the

leachable concentrations of the eight TC

metals, antimony, beryllium, nickel,

vanadium, and zinc in the 1990 and

1993 samples. SW–846 Method 7470

was used for mercury analyses of the

extracts from the 1993 samples. Giant

used SW–846 Method 1311 (TCLP;

modified using distilled water)/Method

9010 to quantify leachable cyanide

concentrations in the 1993 samples.

Extractable metals for one of the 1993

composite samples (i.e., Sample D) was

evaluated by the OWEP (SW–846

Method 1330).1

Giant used SW–846 Method 1310

(EP)/Method 6010 to quantify the

leachable concentrations of arsenic,

barium, cadmium, chromium, lead,

selenium, and silver in the 1990

samples. SW–846 Method 7470 was

used for mercury analyses of the

extracts from the 1990 samples. The EP

analyses were only conducted on the

three 1990 composite samples.

Characteristic testing was conducted

on the 1990 and 1993 samples of the

stockpiled waste, including analysis for

reactive cyanide and reactive sulfide

(SW–846 Methods 7.3.3.2 and 7.3.4.2,

respectively), ignitability (SW–846

Method 1010 (modified)), and

corrosivity (SW–846 Method 9045).

Table 1 presents the maximum total

constituent and leachate concentrations

for the eight TC metals, antimony,

beryllium, cyanide, nickel, vanadium,

and zinc for the composite samples of

the petitioned waste. Table 1 also

presents maximum reactive cyanide and

reactive sulfide concentrations.

The detection limits presented in

Table 1 represent the lowest

concentrations quantifiable by Giant

when using the appropriate SW–846 or

Agency-approved analytical methods to

analyze its waste. (Detection limits may

vary according to the waste and waste

matrix being analyzed, i.e., the

‘‘cleanliness’’ waste matrices varies and

‘‘dirty’’ waste matrices may cause

interferences, thus raising the detection

limits).

Giant used SW–846 Methods 8240

and 8270 to quantify the total

constituent concentrations of 41 volatile

and 65 semi-volatile organic

compounds, respectively, in the

stockpiled waste samples. This suite of

constituents included all of the

nonpesticide organic constituents listed

in § 261.24. Giant used SW–846

Methods 8240 and 8270 to quantify the

leachable concentrations of 21 volatile

and 76 semi-volatile organic

compounds, respectively, in the

stockpiled waste samples, following

extraction by SW–846 Method 1311
25180 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules

(TCLP). This suite of constituents

included all of the organic constituents

listed in § 261.24. Table 2 presents the

maximum total and leachate

concentrations of all detected organic

constituents in Giant’s waste and waste

extract samples. Lastly, on the basis of

explanations and analytical data

provided by Giant, none of the analyzed

samples exhibited the characteristics of

ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity.

See § 261.21, § 261.22 and § 261.23.

TABLE 1.—MAXIMUM TOTAL CONSTITUENT AND LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) 1 STOCKPILED SOIL

Inorganic constituents

Total constituent

analyses

Leachate analyses

EP/TCLP OWEP

Antimony ............................................................................................................................................. < 0.3 0.07 < 0.616

Arsenic ................................................................................................................................................ 3.9 < 0.2 < 2.05

Barium ................................................................................................................................................ 194 0.632 0.629

Beryllium ............................................................................................................................................. 0.3 0.002 < 1.03

Cadmium ............................................................................................................................................ 3.9 0.003 < 0.030

Chromium (total) ................................................................................................................................. 507 0.149 < 0.0999

Cyanide (total) .................................................................................................................................... < 1 < 0.02

Lead .................................................................................................................................................... 26.2 < 0.08 0.916

Mercury ............................................................................................................................................... 0.29 < 0.1 < 0.006

Nickel .................................................................................................................................................. 14.7 0.007 0.954

Selenium ............................................................................................................................................. < 0.4 < 0.09 1.68

Silver ................................................................................................................................................... < 0.7 < 0.007 < 0.074

Vanadium ........................................................................................................................................... 55 < 0.04 < 0.41

Zinc ..................................................................................................................................................... 302 1.67 0.978

Cyanide (reactive) .............................................................................................................................. < 2

Sulfide (reactive) ................................................................................................................................ < 10

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

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

specific levels found in one sample.

TABLE 2.—MAXIMUM TOTAL CONSTITUENT AND LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) 1 STOCKPILED SOIL

Organic constituents

Total constituent

analyses

TCLP leachate analyses

Acetone ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.032 < 0.1

Benzo(a)anthracene ..................................................................................................................................................... 1.2 < 0.005

Benzo(a)pyrene ............................................................................................................................................................ 2.1 < 0.005

Chrysene ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3.9 < 0.005

Fluorene ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1.5 < 0.005

2-Methylnaphthalene .................................................................................................................................................... 5.9 0.006

Naphthalene ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.83 < 0.005

Phenanthrene ............................................................................................................................................................... 4.4 < 0.005

Pyrene .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2.1 < 0.005

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

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

specific levels found in one sample.

Giant submitted a signed certification

stating that the waste pile contains

2,000 cubic yards of waste. The EPA

reviews a petitioner’s estimates and, on

occasion, has requested a petitioner to

re-evaluate estimated waste volume.

The EPA accepted Giant’s certified

estimate of 2,000 cubic yards of

stockpiled waste.

The EPA does not generally verify

submitted test data before proposing

delisting decisions. The sworn affidavit

submitted with this petition binds the

petitioner to present truthful and

accurate results. The EPA, however, has

maintained a spot-check sampling and

analysis program to verify the

representative nature of the data for

some percentage of the submitted

petitions. A spot-check visit to a

selected facility may be initiated before

finalizing a delisting petition or after

granting a final exclusion.

D. Agency Evaluation

The EPA considered the

appropriateness of alternative waste

management scenarios for Giant’s

stockpiled waste and decided, based on

the information provided in the

petition, that disposal in a municipal

solid waste landfill is the most

reasonable, worst-case scenario for this

waste. Under a landfill disposal

scenario, the major exposure route of

concern for any hazardous constituents

would be ingestion of contaminated

ground water. The EPA, therefore,

evaluated Giant’s petitioned waste using

the modified EPACML which predicts

the potential for groundwater

contamination from wastes that are

landfilled. See 56 FR 32993 (July 18,

1991), 56 FR 67197 (December 30,

1991), and the RCRA public docket for

these notices for a detailed description

of the EPACML model, the disposal

assumptions, and the modifications

made for delisting. This model, which

includes both unsaturated and saturated

zone transport modules, was used to

predict reasonable worst-case

contaminant levels in groundwater at a

compliance point (i.e., a receptor well

serving as a drinking-water supply).

Specifically, the model estimated the

dilution/attenuation factor (DAF)

resulting from subsurface processes

such as three-dimensional dispersion

and dilution from groundwater recharge

for a specific volume of waste. The EPA

requests comments on the use of the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules 25181

EPACML as applied to the evaluation of

Giant’s petitioned waste.

For the evaluation of Giant’s

petitioned waste, the EPA used the

EPACML to evaluate the mobility of the

hazardous inorganic constituents

detected in the extract of samples of

Giant’s stockpiled waste. The EPA

intends to evaluate petitions for wastes

no longer being generated on a case-bycase basis. The DAFs are currently

calculated assuming an ongoing process

generates wastes for 20 years. Therefore,

the DAF needs to be adjusted as

appropriate for an one-time exclusion.

The DAF for the waste volume of 2,000

cubic yards/year has been adjusted for

the evaluation of this petition. The DAF

for 2,000 cubic yards/year assuming 20

years of generation is 79, for this

petition a DAF of 100 is being used. The

EPA’s evaluation, using a DAF of 100,

maximum waste volume estimate of

2,000 cubic yards and the maximum

reported TCLP or OWEP leachate

concentrations (see Table 1), yielded

compliance-point concentrations (see

Table 3) that are below the current

health-based levels at an assumed risk

level of 10¥6 used in delisting decisionmaking.

TABLE 3.—EPACML: CALCULATED COMPLIANCE-POINT CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) STOCKPILED SOIL

Inorganic constituents

Compliance

point concentrations 1

(mg/l)

Levels of

regulatory

concern 2

(mg/l)

Antimony ...................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0007 0.006

Barium .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0063 2.0

Beryllium ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.00002 0.004

Cadmium ...................................................................................................................................................................... 0.00003 0.005

Chromium ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0015 0.1

Lead ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.009 0.015

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................................ 0.010 0.1

Selenium ...................................................................................................................................................................... 0.017 0.05

Zinc ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.017 10.0

1 Using the maximum EP/TCLP leachate level and based on a DAF of 100 calculated using the EPACML for an one-time volume of 2,000

cubic yards. 2See Docket Report on Health-Based Levels and Solubilities Used in the Evaluation of Delisting Petitions, December 1994 located in the

RCRA public docket for today’s notice.

The maximum reported or calculated

leachate concentrations of antimony,

barium, beryllium, cadmium,

chromium, lead, nickel selenium, and

zinc in the stockpiled waste yielded

compliance point concentrations well

below the health-based levels used in

delisting decision-making. The EPA did

not evaluate the mobility of the

remaining inorganic constituents (i.e.,

arsenic, mercury, silver, vanadium, and

cyanide) from Giant’s waste because

they were not detected in the leachate

using the appropriate analytical test

methods (see Table 1). The EPA believes

that it is inappropriate to evaluate

nondetectable concentrations of a

constituent of concern in its modeling

efforts if the nondetectable value was

obtained using the appropriate

analytical method. If a constituent

cannot be detected (when using the

appropriate analytical method with an

adequate detection limit), the EPA

assumes that the constituent is not

present and therefore does not present

a threat to human health or the

environment.

The EPA also evaluated the potential

hazard of 2-methylnaphthalene, the

only organic constituent detected in the

TCLP extract of samples of Giant’s

stockpiled waste. Although, the EPA

does not have a health-based level of

concern for comparison, the EPA

believes that the reported leachate

concentration of 0.006 ppm does not

present a potential concern. In

particular, were this leachate

concentration evaluated using the

EPACML, the calculated compliancepoint concentration would be 0.00006

ppm, a value lower than other

chemicals from the naphthalene family.

The EPA does not believe that this

concentration, at the receptor well,

would present an adverse impact on

human health or the environment.

As reported in Table 1, the maximum

concentrations of reactive cyanide and

sulfide in Giant’s stockpiled waste are

less than 2 and 10 ppm, respectively.

These concentrations are below the

EPA’s interim standards of 250 and 500

ppm, respectively. See Interim Agency

Thresholds for Toxic Gas Generation,

July 12, 1985, internal Agency

Memorandum in the RCRA public

docket. Therefore, reactive cyanide and

sulfide levels are not of concern.

The EPA concluded, after reviewing

Giant’s processes, that no other

hazardous constituents of concern, other

than those tested for, are likely to be

present or formed as reaction products

or by-products in Giant’s waste. In

addition, on the basis of explanations

and analytical data provided by Giant,

pursuant to § 260.22, the EPA concludes

that the waste does not exhibit any of

the characteristics of ignitability,

corrosivity, or reactivity. See § 261.21,

§ 261.22, and § 261.23, respectively.

During the evaluation of Giant’s

petition, the EPA also considered the

potential impact of the petitioned waste

via non-ground water routes (i.e., air

emission and surface runoff). With

regard to airborne dispersion in

particular, the EPA believes that

exposure to airborne contaminants from

Giant’s petitioned waste is unlikely. The

EPA evaluated the potential hazards

resulting from the unlikely scenario of

airborne exposure to hazardous

constituents released from Giant’s waste

in an open landfill. The results of this

worst-case analysis indicated that there

is no substantial present or potential

hazard to human health from airborne

exposure to constituents from Giant’s

stockpiled waste. A description of the

EPA’s assessment of the potential

impact of Giant’s waste, with regard to

airborne dispersion of waste

contaminants, is presented in the RCRA

public docket for today’s proposed rule.

The EPA also considered the potential

impact of the petitioned waste via a

surface water route. The EPA believes

that containment structures at

municipal solid waste landfills can

effectively control surface water run-off,

as the recently promulgated Subtitle D

regulations (see 56 FR 50978, October 9,

1991) prohibit pollutant discharges into

surface waters. Furthermore, the

concentrations of any hazardous

constituents dissolved in the runoff will

tend to be lower than the levels in the
25182 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules

TCLP/EP or OWEP leachate analyses

reported in today’s notice, due to the

aggressive acid medium used for

extraction in the TCLP/EP and OWEP

tests. The EPA believes that, in general,

leachate derived from the waste is

unlikely to enter a surface water body

directly without first travelling through

the saturated subsurface zone where

further dilution and attenuation of

hazardous constituents will also occur.

Leachable concentrations provide a

direct measure of the solubility of a

toxic constituent in water, and are

indicative of the fraction of the

constituent that may be mobilized in

surface water, as well as ground water.

The reported TCLP/EP and OWEP

extraction data show that the metals in

Giant’s stockpiled waste are essentially

immobile in aqueous solution.

Therefore, constituents that might be

released from Giant’s waste to surface

water would be likely to remain

undissolved. Finally, any transported

constituents would be further diluted in

the receiving surface water body due to

relatively large flows of the streams/

rivers of concern.

Based on the reasons discussed above,

the EPA believes that contamination of

surface water through run-off from the

waste disposal area is very unlikely.

Nevertheless, the EPA evaluated

potential impacts on surface water if

Giant’s waste were released from a

municipal solid waste landfill through

run-off and erosion. See, the RCRA

public docket for today’s proposed rule.

The estimated levels of the hazardous

constituents of concern in surface water

would be well below health-based levels

for human health, as well as below the

EPA Chronic Water Quality Criteria for

aquatic organisms (USEPA, OWRS,

1987). The EPA, therefore, concluded

that Giant’s stockpiled waste is not a

substantial present or potential hazard

to human health and the environment

via the surface water exposure pathway.

E. Conclusion

The EPA has reviewed the sampling

procedures used by Giant and has

determined that they satisfy the EPA

criteria for collecting representative

samples of the variations in constituent

concentrations found throughout the

waste pile. The data submitted in

support of the petition show that

constituents in Giant’s waste are present

below the health-based levels used in

the delisting decision-making. In

addition, the constituents are immobile

and should not leach from the waste

pile into potential receptors. The EPA

believes that Giant has successfully

demonstrated that the stockpiled waste

is non-hazardous.

The EPA, therefore, proposes to grant

a one-time exclusion to Giant Refining

Company, Inc., located in Bloomfield,

New Mexico, for the stockpiled waste

described in its petition as EPA

Hazardous Waste No. K051. The EPA’s

decision to exclude this waste is based

on descriptions of the excavation

activities associated with the petitioned

waste, descriptions of Giant’s

wastewater treatment process, and

characterization of the stockpiled waste.

If the proposed rule is finalized, the

petitioned waste will no longer be

subject to regulation under Parts 262

through 268 and the permitting

standards of Part 270.

If made final, the proposed exclusion

will apply only to the 2,000 cubic yards

of stockpiled waste generated during the

excavation of Giant’s two wastewater

treatment impoundments (referred to as

the South and North Oily Water Ponds).

The facility would need to file a new

petition for any new waste produced.

The facility must treat any excavated

soil in excess of the original 2,000 cubic

yards as hazardous unless a new

exclusion is granted.

Although management of the waste

covered by this petition would be

removed from Subtitle C jurisdiction

upon final promulgation of an

exclusion, the generator of a delisted

waste must either treat, store, or dispose

of the waste in an on-site facility, or

ensure that the waste is delivered to an

off-site storage, treatment, or disposal

facility, either of which is permitted,

licensed, or registered by a State to

manage municipal or industrial solid

waste. Alternatively, the delisted waste

may be delivered to a facility that

beneficially uses or reuses, or

legitimately recycles or reclaims the

waste, or treats the waste prior to such

beneficial use, reuse, recycling, or

reclamation.

IV. Effective Date

This rule, if made final, will become

effective immediately upon 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

persons 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 six-month deadline is not

necessary to achieve the purpose of

Section 3010, the EPA believes 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 Procedure Act, pursuant

to 5 U.S.C.§ 553(d).

V. Regulatory Impact

Under Executive Order 12866, the

EPA must conduct an ‘‘assessment of

the potential costs and benefits’’ for all

‘‘significant’’ regulatory actions. This

proposal to grant an exclusion is not

significant, since its effect, if

promulgated, would be to reduce the

overall costs and economic impact of

the EPA’s hazardous waste management

regulations. This reduction would be

achieved by excluding waste generated

at a specific facility from the EPA’s lists

of hazardous wastes, thereby enabling

this facility to treat its waste as nonhazardous. There is no additional

impact due to today’s rule. Therefore,

this proposal would not be a significant

regulation, and no cost/benefit

assessment is required. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has also

exempted this rule from the requirement

for OMB review under Section (6) of

Executive Order 12866.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601–612, whenever an

agency is required to publish a general

notice of rulemaking for any proposed

or final rule, it must prepare and make

available for public comment a

regulatory flexibility analysis that

describes the impact of the rule on small

entities (i.e., small businesses, small

organizations, and small governmental

jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility

analysis is required, however, if the

Administrator or delegated

representative certifies that the rule will

not have any impact on any small

entities.

This rule, if promulgated, will not

have any adverse economic impact on

any small entities since its effect would

be to reduce the overall costs of the

EPA’s hazardous waste regulations and

would be limited to one facility.

Accordingly, I hereby certify that this

proposed regulation, if promulgated,

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. This regulation, therefore, does

not require a regulatory flexibility

analysis.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

Information collection and

recordkeeping requirements associated

with this proposed rule have been

approved by OMB under the provisions
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules 25183

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(Pub. L. 96–511, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 et

seq.) and have been assigned OMB

Control Number 2050–0053.

VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),

Public Law 104–4, which was signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA

generally must prepare a written

statement for rules with Federal

mandates that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, and tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year. When such a statement

is required for EPA rules, under section

205 of the UMRA, the EPA must

identify and consider alternatives,

including the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The EPA must select that alternative,

unless the Administrator explains in the

final rule why it was not selected or it

is inconsistent with law. Before the EPA

establishes regulatory requirements that

may significantly or uniquely affect

small governments, including tribal

governments, it must develop under

section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, giving them

meaningful and timely input in the

development of the EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising them

on compliance with the regulatory

requirements. The UMRA generally

defines a Federal mandate for regulatory

purposes as one that imposes an

enforceable duty upon state, local or

tribal governments or the private sector.

The EPA finds that today’s proposed

delisting decision is deregulatory in

nature and does not impose any

enforceable duty upon state, local or

tribal governments or the private sector.

In addition, the proposed delisting does

not establish any regulatory

requirements for small governments and

so does not require a small government

agency plan under UMRA section 203.

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: May 3, 1996.

Jane N. Saginaw,

Regional Administrator.

For the reasons set out 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. In Table 2 of Appendix IX of Part

261 it is proposed 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.

TABLE 2.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description

* * * * * * *

Giant Refining Company, Inc ......... Bloomfield, New Mexico ................ Waste generated during the excavation of soils from two wastewater

treatment impoundments (referred to as the South and North Oily

Water Ponds) used to contain water outflow from an API separator

(EPA Hazardous Waste No. K051). This is a one-time exclusion for

approximately 2,000 cubic yards of stockpiled waste. This exclusion

was published on [insert publication date of the final rule].

Notification Requirements:

Giant Refining Company 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 for disposal at

least 60 days prior to the commencement of such activities. Failure

to provide such a notification will result in a violation of the delisting

petition and a possible revocation of the decision.

* * * * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–12607 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1 and 73

[MM Docket No. 96–16, FCC 96–198]

Revision of Broadcast EEO Policies

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

comment period; dismissal of petition

for reconsideration.

SUMMARY: In Streamlining Broadcast

EEO Rules and Policies, FCC 96–198,

released April 26, 1996 (Streamlining),

the Commission dismisses a Petition for

Reconsideration, grants a Petition for

Clarification in part and denies it in

part, and grants a motion for extension

of time concerning the Commission’s

Order and Notice of Proposed Rule

Making, 11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996), MM

Docket No. 96–16, 61 FR 9964 (March

12, 1996) (NPRM). The Commission

finds that the public interest favors

grant of the motion for extension of

time.

DATES: Initial comments due July 1,

1996; reply comments due July 31,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hope G. Cooper, Mass Media Bureau,

Enforcement Division. (202) 418–1450.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of Streamlining, FCC 96–198,

adopted and released April 26, 1996.

The complete text of Streamlining is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919

M Street, NW., Washington, DC, and

also may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,