54770 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued 

Facility Address Waste description 

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

requires action by EPA, the Division Director will notify the facility 

in writing of the actions the Division Director believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice 

shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement 

providing the facility with an opportunity to present information as 

to why the proposed EPA action is not necessary. The facility shall 

have 10 days from the date of the Division Director’s notice to 

present such information. 

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

paragraph (6)(D) or (if no information is presented under paragraph 

(6)(D)) the initial receipt of information described in paragraphs (5), 

(6)(A) or (6)(B), the Division Director will issue a final written determination describing EPA actions that are necessary to protect 

human health and/or the environment. Any required action described in the Division Director’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Division Director provides otherwise. 

(7) Notification Requirements: 

BAE Systems must do the following before transporting the delisted 

waste. Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of 

the delisting petition and a possible revocation of the decision. 

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

Agency to which or through which it will transport the delisted 

waste described above for disposal, 60 days before beginning such 

activities. 

(B) Update the one-time written notification if it ships the delisted 

waste into a different disposal facility. 

(C) Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the 

delisting variance and a possible revocation of the decision. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. E8–21227 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2008–0457; SW–FRL– 

8713–1] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a 

petition submitted by Cooper CrouseHinds (C–H) to exclude (or delist) a 

wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) 

sludge and filter sand (collectively, 

sludge) generated by C–H in Amarillo, 

TX from the lists of hazardous wastes. 

EPA used the Delisting Risk Assessment 

Software (DRAS) in the evaluation of 

the impact of the petitioned waste on 

human health and the environment. 

EPA bases its proposed decision to 

grant the petition on an evaluation of 

waste-specific information provided by 

the petitioner. This proposed decision, 

if finalized, would exclude the 

petitioned waste from the requirements 

of hazardous waste regulations under 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA). 

If finalized, EPA would conclude that 

C–H’s petitioned waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original 

listing criteria. EPA would also 

conclude that C–H’s process minimizes 

short-term and long-term threats from 

the petitioned waste to human health 

and the environment. 

DATES: We will accept comments until 

October 23, 2008. We will stamp 

comments postmarked after the close of 

the comment period as ‘‘late.’’ These 

‘‘late’’ comments may not be considered 

in formulating a final decision. 

Your requests for a hearing must 

reach EPA by October 8, 2008. The 

request must contain the information 

described in § 260.20(d). 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

RCRA–2008–0457 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: kim.youngmoo@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Youngmoo Kim, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 

6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Youngmoo Kim, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 

6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–RCRA–2008– 

0457. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 54771 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket. All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

RCRA Branch, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Dallas, TX 75202. The hard copy RCRA 

regulatory docket for this proposed rule, 

EPA–R06–RCRA–2008–0457, is 

available for viewing from 9 a.m. to 4 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. The public may copy 

material from the regulatory docket at 

no cost for the first 100 pages and at 

$0.15 per page for additional copies. 

EPA requests that you contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The 

interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the office at least 24 

hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information regarding the 

Cooper Crouse-Hinds petition, contact 

Youngmoo Kim at 214–665–6788 or by 

e-mail at kim.youngmoo@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this section is organized 

as follows: 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA proposing? 

B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this 

delisting? 

C. How will C–H manage the waste, if it 

is delisted? 

D. When would the proposed delisting 

exclusion be finalized? 

E. How would this action affect states? 

II. Background 

A. What is the history of the delisting 

program? 

B. What is a delisting petition, and what 

does it require of a petitioner? 

C. What factors must EPA consider in 

deciding whether to grant a delisting 

petition? 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What waste did C–H petition EPA to 

delist? 

B. Who is C–H and what process does it 

use to generate the petitioned waste? 

C. How did C–H sample and analyze the 

data in this petition? 

D. What were the results of C–H’s 

analyses? 

E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of 

delisting this waste? 

F. What changes have been made to the 

DRAS model? 

G. What did EPA conclude about C–H’s 

analysis? 

H. What other factors did EPA consider in 

its evaluation? 

I. What is EPA’s evaluation of this delisting 

petition? 

IV. Next Steps 

A. With what conditions must the 

petitioner comply? 

B. What happens if C–H violates the terms 

and conditions? 

V. Public Comments 

A. How may I as an interested party submit 

comments? 

B. How may I review the docket or obtain 

copies of the proposed exclusion? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing: 

(1) To grant C–H’s delisting petition to 

have its WWTP sludge excluded, or 

delisted, from the definition of a 

hazardous waste; and subject to certain 

verification and monitoring conditions. 

(2) To use the Delisting Risk 

Assessment Software (DRAS) to 

evaluate the potential impact of the 

petitioned waste on human health and 

the environment. The Agency used this 

model to predict the concentration of 

hazardous constituents released from 

the petitioned waste, once it is 

disposed. 

B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this 

delisting? 

C–H’s petition requests an exclusion 

from the F006 waste listing pursuant to 

40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. C–H does 

not believe that the petitioned waste 

meets the criteria for which EPA listed 

it. C–H also believes no additional 

constituents or factors could cause the 

waste to be hazardous. EPA’s review of 

this petition included consideration of 

the original listing criteria and the 

additional factors required by the 

Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See 

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

6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(1)–(4) 

(hereinafter all sectional references are 

to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated). 

In making the initial delisting 

determination, EPA evaluated the 

petitioned waste against the listing 

criteria and factors cited in 

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

review, EPA agrees with the petitioner 

that the waste is non-hazardous with 

respect to the original listing criteria. If 

EPA had found, based on this review, 

that the waste remained hazardous 

based on the factors for which the waste 

was originally listed, EPA would have 

proposed to deny the petition. EPA 

evaluated the waste with respect to 

other factors or criteria to assess 

whether there is a reasonable basis to 

believe that such additional factors 

could cause the waste to be hazardous. 

EPA considered whether the waste is 

acutely toxic, the concentration of the 

constituents in the waste, their tendency 

to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their 

persistence in the environment once 

released from the waste, plausible and 

specific types of management of the 

petitioned waste, the quantities of waste 

generated, and waste variability. EPA 

believes that the petitioned waste does 

not meet the listing criteria and thus 

should not be a listed waste. EPA’s 

proposed decision to delist waste from 

C–H is based on the information 

submitted in support of this rule, 

including descriptions of the wastes and 

analytical data from the Amarillo, TX 

facility. 

C. How will C–H manage the waste, if 

it is delisted? 

If the sludge is delisted, the WWTP 

sludge from C–H will be disposed of at 

the following RCRA Subtitle D lined 

landfill with a leachate collection 

system: The Allied Waste Service 

Southwest Subtitle D landfill in Canyon, 

Texas. 

D. When would the proposed delisting 

exclusion be finalized? 

RCRA section 3001(f) specifically 

requires EPA to provide a notice and an 

opportunity for comment before 

granting or denying a final exclusion. 

Thus, EPA will not grant the exclusion 

until it addresses all timely public 

comments (including those at public 

hearings, if any) on this proposal. 

RCRA section 3010(b)(1) at 42 USCA 

6930(b)(1), allows rules to become 

effective in less than six months when 

the regulated facility does not need the 

six-month period to come into 

compliance. That is the case here, 

because this rule, if finalized, would 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
54772 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

reduce the existing requirements for 

persons generating hazardous wastes. 

EPA believes that this exclusion 

should be effective immediately upon 

final publication because a six-month 

deadline is not necessary to achieve the 

purpose of section 3010(b), and a later 

effective date would impose 

unnecessary hardship and expense on 

this petitioner. These reasons also 

provide good cause for making this rule 

effective immediately, upon final 

publication, under the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

E. How would this action affect states? 

Because EPA is issuing this exclusion 

under the Federal RCRA delisting 

program, only states subject to Federal 

RCRA delisting provisions would be 

affected. This would exclude states 

which have received authorization from 

EPA to make their own delisting 

decisions. 

EPA allows states to impose their own 

non-RCRA regulatory requirements that 

are more stringent than EPA’s, under 

section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929. 

These more stringent requirements may 

include a provision that prohibits a 

Federally issued exclusion from taking 

effect in the state. Because a dual system 

(that is, both Federal (RCRA) and state 

(non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a 

petitioner’s waste, EPA urges petitioners 

to contact the state regulatory authority 

to establish the status of their wastes 

under the state law. 

EPA has also authorized some states 

(for example, Louisiana, Oklahoma, 

Georgia, Illinois) to administer a RCRA 

delisting program in place of the Federal 

program, that is, to make state delisting 

decisions. Therefore, this exclusion 

does not apply in those authorized 

states unless that state makes the rule 

part of its authorized program. If C–H 

transports the petitioned waste to or 

manages the waste in any state with 

delisting authorization, C–H must 

obtain delisting authorization from that 

state before it can manage the waste as 

non-hazardous in the state. 

II. Background 

A. What is the history of the delisting 

program? 

EPA published an amended list of 

hazardous wastes from non-specific and 

specific sources on January 16, 1981, as 

part of its final and interim final 

regulations implementing section 3001 

of RCRA. EPA has amended this list 

several times and published it in 

§§ 261.31 and 261.32. 

EPA lists these wastes as hazardous 

because: (1) The wastes typically and 

frequently exhibit one or more of the 

characteristics of hazardous wastes 

identified in Subpart C of part 261 (that 

is, ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, 

and toxicity), (2) the wastes meet the 

criteria for listing contained in 

§§ 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3), or (3) the wastes 

are mixed with or derived from the 

treatment, storage or disposal of such 

characteristic and listed wastes and 

which therefore become hazardous 

under §§ 261.3(a)(2)(iv) or (c)(2)(i), 

known as the ‘‘mixture’’ or ‘‘derivedfrom’’ rules, respectively. 

Individual waste streams may vary, 

however, depending on raw materials, 

industrial processes, and other factors. 

Thus, while a waste described in these 

regulations or resulting from the 

operation of the mixture or derived-from 

rules generally is hazardous, a specific 

waste from an individual facility may 

not be hazardous. 

For this reason, §§ 260.20 and 260.22 

provide an exclusion procedure, called 

delisting, which allows persons to prove 

that EPA should not regulate a specific 

waste from a particular generating 

facility as a hazardous waste. 

B. What is a delisting petition, and what 

does it require of a petitioner? 

A delisting petition is a request from 

a facility to EPA or an authorized state 

to exclude wastes from the list of 

hazardous wastes. The facility petitions 

EPA because it does not consider the 

wastes hazardous under RCRA 

regulations. 

In a delisting petition, the petitioner 

must show that wastes generated at a 

particular facility do not meet any of the 

criteria for which the waste was listed. 

The criteria for which EPA lists a waste 

are in part 261 and further explained in 

the background documents for the listed 

waste. 

In addition, under § 260.22, a 

petitioner must prove that the waste 

does not exhibit any of the hazardous 

waste characteristics (that is, 

ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and 

toxicity) and present sufficient 

information for EPA to decide whether 

factors other than those for which the 

waste was listed warrant retaining it as 

a hazardous waste. (See part 261 and the 

background documents for the listed 

waste.) 

Generators remain obligated under 

RCRA to confirm whether their waste 

remains non-hazardous based on the 

hazardous waste characteristics even if 

EPA has ‘‘delisted’’ the waste. 

C. What factors must EPA consider in 

deciding whether to grant a delisting 

petition? 

Besides considering the criteria in 

§ 260.22(a) and section 3001(f) of RCRA, 

42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background 

documents for the listed wastes, EPA 

must consider any factors (including 

additional constituents) other than those 

for which EPA listed the waste, if a 

reasonable basis exists that these 

additional factors could cause the waste 

to be hazardous. 

EPA must also consider as hazardous 

waste mixtures containing listed 

hazardous wastes and wastes derived 

from treating, storing, or disposing of 

listed hazardous waste. See 

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

called the ‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derivedfrom’’ rules, respectively. These wastes 

are also eligible for exclusion and 

remain hazardous wastes until 

excluded. See 66 FR 27266 (May 16, 

2001). 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What waste did C–H petition EPA to 

delist? 

On March 25, 2008, C–H petitioned 

EPA to exclude from the lists of 

hazardous wastes contained in § 261.31, 

WWTP sludge (F006) generated from its 

facility located in Amarillo, Texas. The 

waste falls under the classification of 

listed waste pursuant to § 261.31. 

Specifically, in its petition, C–H 

requested that EPA grant a standard 

exclusion for 819 cubic yards per year 

of the WWTP sludge. 

B. Who is C–H and what process does 

it use to generate the petitioned waste? 

The facility manufactures electrical 

fittings plated zinc for corrosion 

resistance. Non-current electrical wiring 

system products commonly called 

conduit fitting have been manufactured 

at this facility since 1982. The zinc 

plating system is non-cyanide 

containing zinc chloride to electroplate 

zinc onto cast gray iron electrical 

fittings to reduce the potential for the 

fittings to corrode when installed in 

outdoor or chemical environment. The 

sludge is generated by wastewater 

treatment of the zinc plating rinse water 

to remove oil, grease and metals. 

The sludge is transferred to filter 

press and separate particles from the 

liquid, creating the filter press sludge 

cake. The final stage of wastewater 

treatment system includes two sand 

filters that serve to polish the 

discharged water. The sludge cake and 

used sands are listed as listed 

hazardous, F006 and disposed in a 

RCRA Subtitle C permitted hazardous 

waste landfill in Emelle, Alabama. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 54773 

C. How did C–H sample and analyze the 

data in this petition? 

To support its petition, C–H 

submitted: 

(1) Historical information on waste 

generation and management practices; 

(2) Analytical results from four 

samples for total concentrations of 

compounds of concern (COCs); 

(3) Analytical results from four 

samples for Toxicity Characteristic 

Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract 

values of COCs; and 

(4) Multiple pH testing for the 

petitioned waste. 

D. What were the results of C–H’s 

analyses? 

EPA believes that the descriptions of 

the C–H analytical characterization 

provide a reasonable basis to grant C– 

H’s petition for an exclusion of the 

WWTP sludge. EPA believes the data 

submitted in support of the petition 

show the WWTP sludge is nonhazardous. Analytical data for the 

WWTP sludge samples were used in the 

DRAS to develop delisting levels. The 

data summaries for COCs are presented 

in Table I. EPA has reviewed the 

sampling procedures used by C–H and 

has determined that it satisfies EPA 

criteria for collecting representative 

samples of the variations in constituent 

concentrations in the WWTP sludge. In 

addition, the data submitted in support 

of the petition show that constituents in 

C–H’s waste are presently below healthbased levels used in the delisting 

decision-making. EPA believes that C–H 

has successfully demonstrated that the 

WWTP sludge is non-hazardous. 

TABLE 1—ANALYTICAL RESULTS/MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATION

[Wastewater Treatment Sludge—Cooper Crouse-Hinds, Amarillo, Texas] 

Constituents Maximum total 

(mg/kg) 

Maximum TCLP 

(mg/L) 

Maximum 

allowable TCLP 

delisting level 

(mg/L) 

Arsenic ....................................................................................................................... <2.00 0.072 0.0759 

Barium ........................................................................................................................ 11.2 1.08 (100) 

Benzene ..................................................................................................................... <0.02 0.00218 (0.5) 

Cadmium .................................................................................................................... 1.58 0.006 0.819 

Cooper ....................................................................................................................... 7.41 0.049 216 

Iron ............................................................................................................................. 26200 0.197 1.24 

Manganese ................................................................................................................ 693 1.60 145 

Nickel ......................................................................................................................... 4.71 0.014 119 

Zinc ............................................................................................................................ 27300 1.51 1810 

Notes: 

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

found in one sample. 

2. The delisting levels are from the DRAS analyses except the chemicals with a parenthesis which are the TCLP regulatory levels. 

E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of 

delisting this waste? 

The worst case scenario for 

management of the sludge was modeled 

for disposal in a landfill. EPA used such 

information gathered to identify 

plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground 

water, surface water, soil, air) for 

hazardous constituents present in the 

sludge. EPA determined that disposal in 

a Subtitle D landfill is the most 

reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario 

for the wastes. In assessing potential 

risks to ground water, EPA used the 

maximum estimated waste volumes and 

the maximum reported extract 

concentrations as inputs to the DRAS 

program to estimate the constituent 

concentrations in the ground water at a 

hypothetical receptor well down 

gradient from the disposal site. Using 

the risk level (carcinogenic risk of 

10¥5 and non-cancer hazard index of 

0.1), the DRAS program can backcalculate the acceptable receptor well 

concentrations (referred to as 

compliance-point concentrations) using 

standard risk assessment algorithms and 

Agency health-based numbers. Using 

the maximum compliance-point 

concentrations and EPA Composite 

Model for Leachate Migration with 

Transformation Products (EPACMTP) 

fate and transport modeling factors, the 

DRAS further back-calculates the 

maximum permissible waste constituent 

concentrations not expected to exceed 

the compliance-point concentrations in 

ground water. 

EPA believes that the EPACMTP fate 

and transport model represents a 

reasonable worst-case scenario for 

possible ground water contamination 

resulting from 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 some reasonable worst-case scenarios 

resulted in conservative values for the 

compliance-point concentrations and 

ensured that the waste, once removed 

from hazardous waste regulation, will 

not pose a significant threat to human 

health and/or the environment. The 

DRAS also uses the maximum estimated 

waste volumes and the maximum 

reported total concentrations to predict 

possible risks associated with releases of 

waste constituents through surface 

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

in the above ground water analyses, the 

DRAS uses the risk level, the healthbased data and standard risk assessment 

and exposure algorithms to predict 

maximum compliance-point 

concentrations of waste constituents at 

a hypothetical point of exposure. Using 

fate and transport equations, the DRAS 

uses the maximum compliance-point 

concentrations and back-calculates the 

maximum allowable waste constituent 

concentrations (or ‘‘delisting levels’’). 

In most cases, because a delisted 

waste is no longer subject to hazardous 

waste control, EPA is generally unable 

to predict, and does not presently 

control, how a petitioner will manage a 

waste after delisting. Therefore, EPA 

currently believes that it is 

inappropriate to consider extensive sitespecific factors when applying the fate 

and transport model. EPA does control 

the type of unit where the waste is 

disposed. 

EPA also considers the applicability 

of ground water monitoring data during 

the evaluation of delisting petitions. In 

this case, the facilities have never 

directly disposed of this material in a 

solid waste landfill, so no representative 

data exists. Therefore, EPA has 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
54774 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

determined that it would be 

unnecessary to request ground water 

monitoring data. 

EPA believes that the descriptions of 

the wastes and analytical 

characterization which illustrate the 

presence of toxic constituents at lower 

concentrations in these waste streams 

provide a reasonable basis to conclude 

that the likelihood of migration of 

hazardous constituents from the 

petitioned waste will be substantially 

reduced so that short-term and longterm threats to human health and the 

environment are minimized. 

The DRAS results, which calculated 

the maximum allowable concentration 

of chemical constituents in the wastes 

are presented in Table 1. Based on the 

comparison of the DRAS results and 

maximum TCLP concentrations found 

in Table 1, the petitioned wastes should 

be delisted because no constituents of 

concern are likely to be present or 

formed as reaction products or by 

products in the wastes. 

F. What changes have been made to the 

DRAS model? 

Since July 2004, EPA has been 

preparing an update of the DRAS 

version 2.0. The software will be 

released as version 3.0. This 

methodology was used to evaluate the 

C–H petition. The DRAS 3.0 addresses 

a number of issues with version 2 and 

improved the fate and transport 

modeling. 

To estimate the downgradient 

concentrations of waste leachate 

constituents released into ground water, 

the DRAS utilizes conservative dilutionattenuation factors (DAFs) taken from 

Monte-Carlo applications of U.S. EPA’s 

Composite Model for Leachate 

Migration with Transformation Products 

(CMTP). DRAS 3.0 includes all new 

DAFs from new CMTP modeling runs. 

The new modeling takes advantage of: 

updated saturated flow and transport 

modules; a new surface impoundment 

module and database; model corrections 

for unrealistic scenarios (like water 

tables modeled above the ground 

surface); new isotherms for metals; and 

a revised recharge and infiltration 

database. As a result, many of the DAFs 

used in previous versions of DRAS have 

changed. 

Further affecting the ground water 

calculation, the relationships for 

determining scaling factors used to scale 

the DAFs to account for very small 

waste streams have been updated to 

reflect the new database information on 

landfills and surface impoundments and 

were also corrected for a metric 

conversion of cubic meters to cubic 

yards. The new scaling factors are 

generally higher than those of previous 

versions of DRAS, resulting in higher 

estimated dilution and attenuation at 

lower waste volumes for both landfills 

and surface impoundments. 

The new metals DAFs, based on 

MINTEQA2 isotherms, can vary as a 

function of the landfill leachate 

concentration. This means that the 

effective DAF (including a scaling factor 

adjustment, if necessary) for an input 

concentration may differ significantly 

with the effective DAF that corresponds 

to the allowable leachate concentration. 

DRAS 3.0 now displays the DAFs in 

both the forward calculated risk tables 

and the tables of maximum allowable 

concentrations so that the difference is 

evident to the user. The isotherms that 

vary by leachate concentration are 

represented in DRAS by a look-up table 

with leachate concentrations paired 

with DAFs. In the event that an actual 

concentration input to DRAS lies 

between two values in the table, or an 

allowable receptor concentration lies 

between two calculated receptor 

concentrations from the table, DRAS 3.0 

will linearly and proportionally 

extrapolate between the two values to 

determine the corresponding exposure 

or allowable leachate concentration. 

EPA changed the calculation for 

particle emissions caused by vehicles 

driving over the waste at the landfill to 

provide a more realistic estimate. The 

estimate depends upon the number of 

trips per day landfill vehicles make back 

and forth over the waste. In previous 

versions of DRAS, this value was 

conservatively set at a 100 trips per day, 

corresponding with an extremely high 

annual waste volume. In DRAS 3.0, a 

minimum number of trips per day was 

conservatively assumed from the 

Subtitle D landfill survey (7.4 trips per 

day at the 95th percentile of values 

reported). The number of trips per day 

specific to the actual waste volume is 

then added to the minimum to reflect 

the impact of very large waste streams. 

This will considerably reduce the 

particle emission estimate for wastes 

generated at all but the largest annual 

volumes. 

EPA added a conversion from English 

to metric tons to the calculation of 

particle emissions from waste 

unloading, resulting in a decrease of 

roughly 10% over previous versions of 

DRAS. We also made a unit-conversion 

factor correction to part of the airvolatile pathway which will reduce the 

impact to the receptor. 

An error in the back-calculation for 

fish ingestion pathway was corrected to 

reflect the difference between freely 

dissolved and total water column waste 

constituent concentrations. 

For the estimation of risk and hazard, 

we made a number of updates to the 

forward and back calculations. Previous 

versions of DRAS assumed that only 

12.5% of particles are absorbed by the 

receptor’s respiratory system. This is no 

longer necessary as toxicity reference 

values for inhalation currently 

recommended by U.S. EPA relate risk or 

hazard directly to exposure 

concentration. DRAS 3.0 does not 

include the 12.5% reduction. This 

change significantly increases estimated 

risks due to particle inhalation and 

lowers corresponding allowable 

concentrations. 

DRAS Version 3.0 has a reformulated 

back calculation of the allowable 

leachate concentrations from exposure 

due to contaminants volatilized during 

household water use to match the 

forward calculation of risk. In previous 

versions of DRAS, the forward 

calculation summed the risks from 

exposure to all three evaluated 

household compartments (the shower, 

the bathroom, and the whole house) 

while the back calculation based the 

maximum allowable level on the single 

most conservative compartment. The 

DRAS 3.0 maximum allowable leachate 

concentrations are now based on the 

combined impact of all three 

compartments. The house exposure was 

also expanded to a 900-minute (15 hour) 

daily exposure to reflect non-working 

residents who have an overall 16 hour 

in-house exposure (the other 1 hour is 

spent in the shower and bathroom). 

EPA resolved the inconsistencies with 

the way DRAS chooses limiting 

pathways for specific waste constituents 

in DRAS 3.0. 

EPA checked all toxicity reference 

values in DRAS and updated where 

necessary. Approximately 180 changes 

were made to the toxicity reference 

values in DRAS based on data in IRIS, 

PPRTV, HEAST, NCEA, CalEPA and 

other sources. Some route-to-route 

extrapolations of oral toxicity data to 

inhalation exposure have been returned 

to DRAS 3.0 if consistent with Agency 

policy. See the Delisting Technical 

Support Document for full accounting of 

this methodology. The same reference 

also includes discussions of toxicity 

reference choices where the multiple 

values were available or where the 

toxicity reference values were specific 

to particular species of constituents. 

G. What did EPA conclude about C–H’s 

analysis? 

EPA concluded, after reviewing C–H’s 

processes that no other hazardous 

constituents of concern, other than 

those for which tested, are likely to be 

present or formed as reaction products 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 54775 

or by-products in the waste. In addition, 

on the basis of explanations and 

analytical data provided by C–H, 

pursuant to § 260.22, EPA concludes 

that the petitioned waste do not exhibit 

any of the characteristics of ignitability, 

corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity. See 

§§ 261.21, 261.22 and 261.23, 

respectively. 

H. What other factors did EPA consider 

in its evaluation? 

During the evaluation of C–H’s 

petition, 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, EPA believes that exposure 

to airborne contaminants from C–H’s 

petitioned waste is unlikely. Therefore, 

no appreciable air releases are likely 

from C–H’s waste under any likely 

disposal conditions. EPA evaluated the 

potential hazards resulting from the 

unlikely scenario of airborne exposure 

to hazardous constituents released from 

C–H’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 and the environment from 

airborne exposure to constituents from 

C–H’s WWTP waste. 

I. What is EPA’s evaluation of this 

delisting petition? 

The descriptions of C–H’s hazardous 

waste process and analytical 

characterization provide a reasonable 

basis for EPA to grant the exclusion. The 

data submitted in support of the petition 

show that constituents in the waste are 

below the leachable concentrations (see 

Table I). EPA believes that C–H’s waste, 

F006 from zinc electroplating process 

will not impose any threat to human 

health and the environment. 

Thus, EPA believes C–H should be 

granted an exclusion for the WWTP 

sludge. EPA believes the data submitted 

in support of the petition show C–H’s 

WWTP sludge is non-hazardous. The 

data submitted in support of the petition 

show that constituents in C–H’s waste 

are presently below the compliance 

point concentrations used in the 

delisting decision and would not pose a 

substantial hazard to the environment. 

EPA believes that C–H has successfully 

demonstrated that the WWTP sludge is 

non-hazardous. 

EPA therefore, proposes to grant an 

exclusion to C–H in Amarillo, Texas, for 

the WWTP sludge described in its 

petition. EPA’s decision to exclude this 

waste is based on descriptions of the 

treatment activities associated with the 

petitioned waste and characterization of 

the WWTP sludge. 

If EPA finalizes the proposed rule, 

EPA will no longer regulate the 

petitioned waste under parts 262 

through 268 and the permitting 

standards of part 270. 

IV. Next Steps 

A. With what conditions must the 

petitioner comply? 

The petitioner, C–H, must comply 

with the requirements in 40 CFR part 

261, appendix IX, Table 1. The text 

below gives the rationale and details of 

those requirements. 

(1) Delisting Levels 

This paragraph provides the levels of 

constituents for which C–H must test 

the WWTP sludge, below which these 

wastes would be considered nonhazardous. EPA selected the set of 

inorganic and organic constituents 

specified in paragraph (1) of 40 CFR part 

261, appendix IX, Table 1, (the 

exclusion language) based on 

information in the petition. EPA 

compiled the inorganic and organic 

constituents list from the composition of 

the waste, descriptions of C–H’s 

treatment process, previous test data 

provided for the waste, and the 

respective health-based levels used in 

delisting decision-making. These 

delisting levels correspond to the 

allowable levels measured in the TCLP 

concentrations. 

(2) Waste Holding and Handling 

The purpose of this paragraph is to 

ensure that C–H manages and disposes 

of any WWTP sludge that contains 

hazardous levels of inorganic and 

organic constituents according to 

Subtitle C of RCRA. Managing the 

WWTP sludge as a hazardous waste 

until initial verification testing is 

performed will protect against improper 

handling of hazardous material. If EPA 

determines that the data collected under 

this paragraph do not support the data 

provided for in the petition, the 

exclusion will not cover the petitioned 

waste. The exclusion is effective upon 

publication in the Federal Register but 

the disposal as non-hazardous cannot 

begin until the verification sampling is 

completed. 

(3) Verification Testing Requirements 

C–H must complete a rigorous 

verification testing program on the 

WWTP sludge to assure that the sludge 

does not exceed the maximum levels 

specified in paragraph (1) of the 

exclusion language. This verification 

program operates on two levels. The 

first part of the verification testing 

program consists of testing the WWTP 

sludge for specified indicator 

parameters as per paragraph (1) of the 

exclusion language. If EPA determines 

that the data collected under this 

paragraph do not support the data 

provided for the petition, the exclusion 

will not cover the generated wastes. If 

the data from the initial verification 

testing program demonstrate that the 

leachate meets the delisting levels, C–H 

may request quarterly testing. EPA will 

notify C–H in writing, if and when it 

may replace the testing conditions in 

paragraph (3)(A) with the testing 

conditions in (3)(B) of the exclusion 

language. 

The second part of the verification 

testing program is the quarterly testing 

of representative samples of WWTP 

sludge for all constituents specified in 

paragraph (1) of the exclusion language. 

EPA believes that the concentrations of 

the constituents of concern in the 

WWTP sludge may vary over time. 

Consequently this program will ensure 

that the sludge is evaluated in terms of 

variation in constituent concentrations 

in the waste over time. 

The proposed subsequent testing 

would verify that C–H operates a 

treatment facility where the constituent 

concentrations of the WWTP sludge do 

not exhibit unacceptable temporal and 

spatial levels of toxic constituents. EPA 

is proposing to require C–H to analyze 

representative samples of the WWTP 

sludge quarterly during the first year of 

waste generation. C–H would begin 

quarterly sampling 60 days after the 

final exclusion as described in 

paragraph (3)(B) of the exclusion 

language. EPA, per paragraph 3(C) of the 

exclusion language, is proposing to end 

the subsequent testing conditions after 

the first year, if C–H has demonstrated 

that the waste consistently meets the 

delisting levels. To confirm that the 

characteristics of the waste do not 

change significantly over time, C–H 

must continue to analyze a 

representative sample of the waste on an 

annual basis. Annual testing requires 

analyzing the full list of components in 

paragraph (1) of the exclusion language. 

If operating conditions change as 

described in paragraph (4) of the 

exclusion language; C–H must reinstate 

all testing in paragraph (1) of the 

exclusion language. C–H must prove 

through a new demonstration that their 

waste meets the conditions of the 

exclusion. If the annual testing of the 

waste does not meet the delisting 

requirements in paragraph (1), C–H 

must notify EPA according to the 

requirements in paragraph (6) of the 

exclusion language. The facility must 

provide sampling results that support 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
54776 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

the rationale that the delisting exclusion 

should not be withdrawn. 

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions 

Paragraph (4) of the exclusion 

language would allow C–H the 

flexibility of modifying its processes (for 

example, changes in equipment or 

change in operating conditions) to 

improve its treatment process. However, 

C–H must prove the effectiveness of the 

modified process and request approval 

from EPA. C–H must manage wastes 

generated during the new process 

demonstration as hazardous waste until 

it has obtained written approval and 

paragraph (3) of the exclusion language 

is satisfied. 

(5) Data Submittals 

To provide appropriate 

documentation that C–H’s WWTP 

sludge is meeting the delisting levels, 

C–H must compile, summarize, and 

keep delisting records on-site for a 

minimum of five years. It should keep 

all analytical data obtained through 

paragraph (3) of the exclusion language 

including quality control information 

for five years. Paragraph (5) of the 

exclusion language requires that C–H 

furnish these data upon request for 

inspection by any employee or 

representative of EPA or the State of 

Texas. If the proposed exclusion is 

made final, it will apply only to 819 

yards per year of wastewater treatment 

sludge generated at the C–H after 

successful verification testing. 

EPA would require C–H to file a new 

delisting petition under any of the 

following circumstances: 

(a) If it significantly alters the 

manufacturing process treatment system 

except as described in paragraph (4) of 

the exclusion language; 

(b) If it uses any new manufacturing 

or production process(es), or 

significantly changes from the current 

process(es) described in their petition; 

or 

(c) If it makes any changes that could 

affect the composition or type of waste 

generated. 

C–H must manage waste volumes 

greater than 819 cubic yards per year of 

WWTP waste as hazardous until EPA 

grants a new exclusion. When this 

exclusion becomes final, C–H’s 

management of the wastes covered by 

this petition would be relieved from 

Subtitle C jurisdiction, the WWTP 

sludge from C–H will be disposed to the 

RCRA Subtitle D landfill of the Allied 

Waste Service Southwest in Canyon, 

TX. 

(6) Reopener 

The purpose of paragraph (6) of the 

exclusion language is to require C–H to 

disclose new or different information 

related to a condition at the facility or 

disposal of the waste, if it is pertinent 

to the delisting. C–H must also use this 

procedure if the waste sample in the 

annual testing fails to meet the levels 

found in paragraph (1). This provision 

will allow EPA to reevaluate the 

exclusion, if a source provides new or 

additional information to EPA. EPA will 

evaluate the information on which EPA 

based the decision to see if it is still 

correct, or if circumstances have 

changed so that the information is no 

longer correct or would cause EPA to 

deny the petition, if presented. 

This provision expressly requires C– 

H to report differing site conditions or 

assumptions used in the petition in 

addition to failure to meet the annual 

testing conditions within 10 days of 

discovery. If EPA discovers such 

information itself or from a third party, 

it can act on it as appropriate. The 

language being proposed is similar to 

those provisions found in RCRA 

regulations governing no-migration 

petitions at § 268.6. 

EPA believes that it has the authority 

under RCRA and the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 

(1978) et seq., to reopen a delisting 

decision. EPA may reopen a delisting 

decision when it receives new 

information that calls into question the 

assumptions underlying the delisting. 

EPA believes a clear statement of its 

authority in delistings is merited in light 

of EPA’s experience. See Reynolds 

Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 and 62 

FR 63458 where the delisted waste 

leached at greater concentrations in the 

environment than the concentrations 

predicted when conducting the TCLP, 

thus leading EPA to repeal the delisting. 

If an immediate threat to human health 

and the environment presents itself, 

EPA will continue to address these 

situations on a case-by-case basis. 

Where necessary, EPA will make a good 

cause finding to justify emergency 

rulemaking. See APA 553(b). 

(7) Notification Requirements 

In order to adequately track wastes 

that have been delisted, EPA is 

requiring that C–H provide a one-time 

notification to any state regulatory 

agency through which or to which the 

delisted waste is being carried. C–H 

must provide this notification 60 days 

before commencing this activity. 

B. What happens if C–H violates the 

terms and conditions? 

If C–H violates the terms and 

conditions established in the exclusion, 

EPA will start procedures to withdraw 

the exclusion. Where there is an 

immediate threat to human health and 

the environment, EPA will evaluate the 

need for enforcement activities on a 

case-by-case basis. EPA expects C–H to 

conduct the appropriate waste analysis 

and comply with the criteria explained 

above in paragraph (1) of the exclusion. 

V. Public Comments 

A. How may I as an interested party 

submit comments? 

EPA is requesting public comments 

on this proposed decision. Please send 

three copies of your comments. Send 

two copies to Ben Banipal, Section 

Chief of the Corrective Action and 

Waste Minimization Section (6PD–C), 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Dallas, Texas 75202. Send a third copy 

to Jackee Hardy, Waste Division, Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality, 

P.O. Box 13087, Austin, TX 78711. 

Identify your comments at the top with 

this regulatory docket number: ‘‘EPA– 

R06–RCRA–2008–0457.’’ You may 

submit your comments electronically to 

Youngmoo Kim at 

kim.youngmoo@epa.gov. 

You should submit requests for a 

hearing to Ben Banipal, Section Chief of 

the Corrective Action and Waste 

Minimization Section (6PD–C), 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Dallas, Texas 75202. 

B. How may I review the docket or 

obtain copies of the proposed 

exclusion? 

You may review the RCRA regulatory 

docket for this proposed rule at the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 

Texas 75202. It is available for viewing 

in the EPA Freedom of Information Act 

Review Room from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. Call (214) 665–6444 

for appointments. The public may copy 

material from any regulatory docket at 

no cost for the first 100 pages, and at 

fifteen cents per page for additional 

copies. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

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


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 54777 

not of general applicability and 

therefore is not a regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). This 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

applies to a particular facility only. 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

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

to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Public Law 104–4). Because 

this rule will affect only a particular 

facility, it will not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

specified in section 203 of UMRA. 

Because this rule will affect only a 

particular facility, this proposed rule 

does not have federalism implications. 

It will not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132, 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this rule. Similarly, 

because this rule will affect only a 

particular facility, this proposed rule 

does not have tribal implications, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175, 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. This rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is that the Agency 

used the DRAS program, which 

considers health and safety risks to 

infants and children, to calculate the 

maximum allowable concentrations for 

this rule. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

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

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. This rule does not involve 

technical standards; thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988, 

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

February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, 

EPA has taken the necessary steps to 

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 

minimize potential litigation, and 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. The Congressional 

Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as 

added by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report which includes a copy of the 

rule to each House of the Congress and 

to the Comptroller General of the United 

States. Section 804 exempts from 

section 801 the following types of rules 

(1) rules of particular applicability; (2) 

rules relating to agency management or 

personnel; and (3) rules of agency 

organization, procedure, or practice that 

do not substantially affect the rights or 

obligations of non-agency parties (5 

U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not required to 

submit a rule report regarding this 

action under section 801 because this is 

a rule of particular applicability. 

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

6921(f). 

Dated: August 28, 2008. 

Bill Luthans, 

Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and 

Permitting Division, EPA Region 6. 

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 1 of Appendix IX of part 

261 add the following waste stream in 

alphabetical order by facility to read as 

follows: 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Waste 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 

TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

* * * * * * * 

Cooper Crouse-Hinds .................... Amarillo , TX .................................. Wastewater Treatment Sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006) 

generated at a maximum annual rate of 819 cubic yards per calendar year after [insert publication date of the final rule] will be disposed in Subtitle D landfill. For the exclusion to be valid, C–H must 

implement a verification testing program that meets the following 

paragraphs: 

(1) Delisting Levels: All leachable concentrations for those constituents must not exceed the following levels (mg/l for TCLP): Arsenic0.0759; Barium-100; Cadmium-0.819; Copper-216; Iron-1.24; Manganese-145; Nickel-119; Zinc-18; Benzene-0.5. 

(2) Waste Management: (A) C–H must manage as hazardous all 

WWTP sludge generated, until it has completed initial verification 

testing described in paragraph (3)(A) and (B), as appropriate, and 

valid analyses show that paragraph(1) is satisfied. 

(B) Levels of constituents measured in the samples of the WWTP 

sludge that do not exceed the levels set forth in paragraph (1) are 

non-hazardous. C–H can manage and dispose of the non-hazardous WWTP sludge according to all applicable solid waste regulations. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
54778 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

(C) If constituent levels in a sample exceed any of the Delisting Levels set in paragraph (1) C–H can collect one additional sample and 

perform expedited analyses to verify if the constituent exceeds the 

delisting level. If this sample confirms the exceedance, C–H must, 

from that point forward, treat the waste as hazardous until it is demonstrated that the waste again meets the levels in paragraph (1) C– 

H must manage and dispose of the waste generated under Subtitle 

C of RCRA from the time that it becomes aware of any exceedance. 

(D) Upon completion of the verification testing described in paragraph 

3(A) and (B) as appropriate and the transmittal of the results to 

EPA, and if the testing results meet the requirements of paragraph 

(1), C–H may proceed to manage its WWTP sludge as non-hazardous waste. If subsequent Verification Testing indicates an exceedance of the Delisting Levels in paragraph (1), C–H must manage the WWTP sludge as a hazardous waste until two consecutive 

quarterly testing samples show levels below the Delisting Levels in 

paragraph (1). 

(3) Verification Testing Requirements: C–H must perform sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures, using appropriate methods. As applicable to the method-defined parameters 

of concern, analyses requiring the use of SW–846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11 must be used without substitution. As applicable, the SW–846 methods might include Methods 8260B, 1311/8260B, 8270C, 1311/8270C, 6010B. 7470, 

9034A, 9012A, ASTMD–4982B, ASTMD–5049, E413.2. Methods 

must meet Performance Based Measurement System Criteria in 

which the Data Quality Objectives are to demonstrate that representative samples of C–H’s F006 sludge meet the delisting levels 

in paragraph (1). If EPA judges the process to be effective under 

the operating conditions used during the initial verification testing, 

C–H may replace the testing required in paragraph (3)(A) with the 

testing required in paragraph (3)(B). C–H Plant must continue to 

test as specified in paragraph (3)(A) until and unless notified by 

EPA in writing that testing in paragraph (3)(A) may be replaced by 

paragraph (3)(B). 

(A) Initial Verification Testing: After EPA grants the final exclusion, C– 

H must do the following: 

(i) Within 60 days of this exclusions becoming final, collect eight samples, before disposal, of the WWTP sludge. 

(ii) The samples are to be analyzed and compared against the 

Delisting Levels in paragraph (1). 

(iii) Within sixty (60) days after this exclusion becomes final, C–H will 

report initial verification analytical test data for the WWTP sludge, 

including analytical quality control information for the first thirty (30) 

days of operation after this exclusion becomes final. If levels of 

constituents measured in the samples of the WWTP sludge that do 

not exceed the levels set forth in paragraph (1) are also non-hazardous in two consecutive quarters after the first thirty (30) days of 

operation after this exclusion become effective, C–H can manage 

and dispose of the WWTP sludge according to all applicable solid 

waste regulations. 

(B) Subsequent Verification Testing: Following written notification by 

EPA, C–H may substitute the testing conditions in (3)(B) for (3)(A). 

C–H must continue to monitor operating conditions, and analyze 

two representative samples of the wastewater treatment sludge for 

each quarter of operation during the first year of waste generation. 

The samples must represent the waste generated during the quarter. After the first year of analytical sampling verification sampling 

can be performed on a single annual sample of the wastewater 

treatment sludge. The results are to be compared to the Delisting 

Levels in paragraph (1). 

(C) Termination of Testing: (i) After the first year of quarterly testing, if 

the Delisting Levels in paragraph (1) are met, C–H may then request that EPA not require quarterly testing. 

(ii) Following cancellation of the quarterly testing, C–H Plant must 

continue to test a representative sample for all constituents listed in 

paragraph (1) annually. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 54779 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If C–H significantly changes the 

process described in its petition or starts any processes that generate(s) the waste that may or could significantly affect the composition or type of waste generated as established under paragraph 

(1) (by illustration, but not limitation, changes in equipment or operating conditions of the treatment process), it must notify EPA in 

writing; it may no longer handle the wastes generated from the new 

process as non-hazardous until the wastes meet the Delisting Levels set in paragraph (1) and it has received written approval to do 

so from EPA. 

(5) Data Submittals: C–H must submit the information described 

below. If C–H fails to submit the required data within the specified 

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

EPA, at its discretion, will consider this sufficient basis to reopen 

the exclusion as described in paragraph 6.C–H must: 

(A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph (3) to the Section 

Chief, Corrective Action and Waste Minimization Section, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, Mail Code, 

(6PD–C) within the time specified. 

(B) Compile records of operating conditions and analytical data from 

paragraph (3), summarized, and maintained on-site for a minimum 

of five years. 

(C) Furnish these records and data when EPA or the state of Texas 

requests them for inspection. 

(D) Send along with all data a signed copy of the following certification statement, to attest to the truth and accuracy of the data 

submitted: 

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

of false or fraudulent statements or representations (pursuant to the 

applicable provisions of the Federal Code, which include, but may 

not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and 42 U.S.C. § 6928), I certify 

that the information contained in or accompanying this document is 

true, accurate and complete. 

As to the (those) identified section(s) of this document for which I 

cannot personally verify its (their) truth and accuracy, I certify as 

the company official having supervisory responsibility for the persons who, acting under my direct instructions, made the verification 

that this information is true, accurate and complete. 

If any of this information is determined by EPA in its sole discretion to 

be false, inaccurate or incomplete, and upon conveyance of this 

fact to the company, I recognize and agree that this exclusion of 

waste will be void as if it never had effect or to the extent directed 

by EPA and that the company will be liable for any actions taken in 

contravention of the company’s RCRA and CERCLA obligations 

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

(6) Re-Opener: (A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, C– 

H possesses or is otherwise made aware of any environmental 

data (including but not limited to leachate data or ground water 

monitoring data) or any other data relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent identified for the delisting verification 

testing is at level higher than the delisting level allowed by the Division Director in granting the petition, then the facility must report 

the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of first 

possessing or being made aware of that data. 

(B) If the annual testing of the waste does not meet the delisting requirements in paragraph (1), C–H must report the data, in writing, 

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

made aware of that data. 

(C) If C–H fails to submit the information described in paragraphs (5), 

(6)(A) or (6)(B) or if any other information is received from any 

source, the Division Director will make a preliminary determination 

as to whether the reported information requires EPA action to protect human health and/or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate 

response necessary to protect human health and the environment. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
54780 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

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

does require action, EPA’s Division Director will notify the facility in 

writing of the actions the Division Director believes are necessary to 

protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include 

a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing the 

facility with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed action by EPA is not necessary. The facility shall have 10 

days from the date of the Division Director’s notice to present such 

information. 

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

paragraph (6)(D) or (if no information is presented under paragraph 

(6)(D)) the initial receipt of information described in paragraphs (5), 

(6)(A) or (6)(B), the Division Director will issue a final written determination describing EPA’s actions that are necessary to protect 

human health and/or the environment. Any required action described in the Division Director’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Division Director provides otherwise. 

(7) Notification Requirements: C–H must do the following before 

transporting the delisted waste. Failure to provide this notification 

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

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

Agency to which or through which it will transport the delisted waste 

described above for disposal, 60 days before beginning such activities. 

(B) Update one-time written notification, if it ships the delisted waste 

into a different disposal facility. 

(C) Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the 

delisting variance and a possible revocation of the decision. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. E8–21228 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS