50348 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

22.4.5 Mail Characteristic Postage 

Adjustment Factor Verification 

The Mail Characteristic, Postage 

Adjustment Factor (PAF), is used for 

errors in the processing category, mail 

class, nonprofit eligibility and content. 

The threshold is 1.05. A mailer will 

only be subject to an assessment when 

the eDoc submitter has exceeded the 

Mail Characteristic PAF threshold in the 

current billing month and three or more 

times in the previous 11 billing months. 

The Mail Characteristic PAF is applied 

at the eDoc Submitter CRID level and is 

calculated using the adjusted and eDoc 

postage attributed to the Mail Owner. 

* * * * * 

705.23.0 Full-Service Automation 

Option 

23.1 Description 

[Revise the second sentence of 23.1 to 

read as follows:] 

* * * For additional information on 

the full-service automation option see 

Publication 6850, Publication for 

Streamlined Mail Acceptance for Letters 

and Flats, available on PostalPro at 

http://postalpro.usps.com. 

* * * * * 

[Add new subsection 23.6, 

Verifications, to read as follows:] 

23.6 Verifications 

The six full-service verification 

descriptions, error thresholds, and 

postage assessments, are provided in 

23.6.1 through 23.6.6. 

23.6.1 Mailer Identification (MID) 

Verification 

The MID is a code used for 

identification of mail’s responsible 

party. A valid MID is one that is 

registered within the Postal Service 

systems and provided in the eDoc. The 

error threshold is 2%. Errors over the 

threshold will be subject to an 

assessment amount equal to the removal 

of the full-service discount claimed for 

each piece in error above the threshold. 

23.6.2 Service Type ID (STID) 

Verification 

The STID is a three-digit code 

included in the IMb for a mailpiece to 

provide mail class and service level. 

The error threshold is 2%. Errors over 

the threshold will be subject to an 

assessment amount equal to the removal 

of the full-service discount claimed for 

each piece in error above the threshold. 

23.6.3 By/For Verification 

The By/For relationship recognizes 

the Mail Owner and Mail Service 

Provider in the eDoc. The error 

threshold is 5%. An error occurs when 

a valid Mail Preparer is not identified, 

a valid Mail Owner is not identified, 

Mail Preparer is incorrectly recorded as 

the Mail Owner, or the Mail Owner is 

incorrectly identified as the Mail 

Preparer. Errors above the threshold are 

subject to an assessment amount equal 

to the removal of the full-service 

discount claimed for each piece in error 

above the threshold. 

23.6.4 Barcode Uniqueness 

Verification 

Barcode uniqueness is met when a 

barcode is unique across all mailers and 

mailings for 45 days. The error 

threshold is 2%. Errors occur when the 

IMcb, IMtb or IMb is not unique across 

all mailings from all mailers over the 

previous 45 days of the postage 

statement mailing date that was 

provided in the eDoc. Errors above the 

threshold are subject to an assessment 

equal to the removal of the full-service 

discount claimed for each piece in error 

above the threshold. 

23.6.5 Entry Facility Verification 

The entry facility location must be 

identified in the eDoc by a Locale Key 

or ZIP Code. The error threshold is 2%. 

Errors above the threshold are subject to 

an assessment amount of the full-service 

discount claimed for each piece in error 

above the threshold. 

23.6.6 Unlinked Copal Verification 

Mailings that will be copalletized 

must be identified in the original eDoc 

submission and properly documented 

within 14 days of the mailing date to 

link trays or sacks to the container. The 

error threshold is 5%. Errors above the 

threshold are subject to an assessment 

amount equal to the full-service 

discount claimed. 

* * * * * 

If the proposal is adopted, we will 

publish an appropriate amendment to 

39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Federal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23615 Filed 10–30–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2017–0556; FRL–9970– 

10-Region 6] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to grant a 

petition submitted by Blanchard 

Refining Company LLC—(Blanchard) to 

exclude (or delist) the residual solids 

generated from the reclamation of oil 

bearing hazardous secondary materials 

(OBSMs) on-site at Blanchard’s 

Galveston Bay Refinery (GBR), located 

in Texas City, Texas from the lists of 

hazardous wastes. EPA used the 

Delisting Risk Assessment Software 

(DRAS) Version 3.0.35 in the evaluation 

of the impact of the petitioned waste on 

human health and the environment. 

DATES: We will accept comments until 

November 30, 2017. We will stamp 

comments received after the close of the 

comment period as late. These late 

comments may or may not be 

considered in formulating a final 

decision. Your requests for a hearing 

must reach EPA by November 15, 2017. 

The request must contain the 

information prescribed in 40 CFR 

260.20(d) (hereinafter all CFR cites refer 

to 40 CFR unless otherwise stated). 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

RCRA–2017–0556, at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules 50349 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information regarding the 

Blanchard Refinery petition, contact 

Michelle Peace at 214–665–7430 or by 

email at peace.michelle@epa.gov. 

Your requests for a hearing must 

reach EPA by November 15, 2017. The 

request must contain the information 

described in 40 CFR 260.20(d). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Blanchard 

submitted a petition under 40 CFR 

260.20 and 260.22(a). Section 260.20 

allows any person to petition the 

Administrator to modify or revoke any 

provision of parts 260 through 266, 268 

and 273. Section 260.22(a) specifically 

provides generators the opportunity to 

petition the Administrator to exclude a 

waste on a ‘‘generator specific’’ basis 

from the hazardous waste lists. EPA 

bases its proposed decision to grant the 

petition on an evaluation of wastespecific information provided by the 

petitioner. This decision, if finalized, 

would conditionally 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 

Blanchard’s petitioned waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original 

listing criteria. EPA would also 

conclude that Blanchard’s reclamation 

process minimizes short-term and longterm threats from the petitioned waste 

to human health and the environment. 

Table of Contents 

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 Blanchard manage the waste 

if it is delisted? 

D. When would the proposed delisting 

exclusion be finalized? 

E. How would this action affect the 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 wastes did Blanchard petition 

EPA to delist? 

B. Who is Blanchard and what process 

does it use to generate the petitioned 

waste? 

C. How did Blanchard sample and analyze 

the data in this petition? 

D. What were the results of Blanchard’s 

sample analysis? 

E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of 

delisting this waste? 

F. What did EPA conclude about 

Blanchard’s analysis? 

G. What other factors did EPA consider in 

its evaluation? 

H. What is EPA’s evaluation of this 

delisting petition? 

IV. Next Steps 

A. With what conditions must the 

petitioner comply? 

B. What happens if Blanchard violates the 

terms and conditions? 

V. Public Comments 

A. How can I as an interested party submit 

comments? 

B. How may I review the docket or obtain 

copies of the proposed exclusions? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

delisting petition submitted by 

Blanchard to have the residual solids 

excluded, or delisted from the definition 

of a hazardous waste. The residual 

solids are listed as F037. Blanchard’s 

residual solids are listed as a hazardous 

waste, based on the potential presence 

of Appendix VII inorganic constituents 

of concern, lead and chromium, and 

Appendix VII organic constituents of 

concern benzene, benzo(a)pyrene and 

chrysene. 

B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this 

delisting? 

Blanchard’s petition requests an 

exclusion from the F037 waste listing 

pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. 

Blanchard does not believe that the 

petitioned waste meets the criteria for 

which EPA listed it. Blanchard 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 

Blanchard is based on the information 

submitted in support of this rule, 

including descriptions of the wastes and 

analytical data resulting from 

Blanchard’s delisting demonstration 

conducted on the petitioned waste. 

C. How will Blanchard manage the 

waste if it is delisted? 

If the residual solids are delisted, 

contingent upon approval of the 

delisting petition, storage containers 

with Blanchard’s delisted residual 

solids will be transported to an 

authorized, solid waste landfill (e.g. 

RCRA Subtitle D landfill, commercial/ 

industrial solid waste landfill, etc.) for 

disposal. Any plans for recycling must 

be addressed through the Hazardous 

Waste Recycling regulations. 

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 

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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
50350 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

publication, under the Administrative 

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

E. How would this action affect the 

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 

Blanchard transports the delisted waste 

to or manages the delisted waste in any 

state with delisting authorization, 

Blanchard must obtain delisting 

authorization from that state before it 

can manage the delisted waste as nonhazardous 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 40 CFR 

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 (b) 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, 40 CFR 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 40 CFR 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 40 

CFR 260.22(a) and § 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 wastes did Blanchard petition 

EPA to Delist? 

In June 2017, Blanchard petitioned 

EPA to exclude from the lists of 

hazardous wastes contained in 

§§ 261.31 and 261.32, residual solids 

(F037) generated during reclamation 

activities conducted at its GBR facility 

located in Texas City, Texas. The waste 

falls under the classification of listed 

waste pursuant to §§ 261.31 and 261.32. 

Specifically, in its petition, Blanchard 

requested that EPA grant a conditional 

exclusion for the annual generation 

volume of 20,000 cubic yards of F037 

residual solids. 

B. Who is Blanchard and what process 

does it use to generate the petitioned 

waste? 

Blanchard owns and operates the GBR 

facility, located in Texas City, Galveston 

County, Texas. Blanchard is a whollyowned subsidiary of Marathon 

Petroleum Company LP. Blanchard’s 

demonstration evaluated representative 

samples of its residual solids resulting 

from the indirect thermal desorption 

reclamation of OBSMs managed on-site 

at Blanchard’s GBR facility. OBSMs 

managed on-site at Blanchard’s GBR 

facility result from separate 

management practices within GBR’s 

petroleum refining operations. 

Blanchard’s approved Sampling and 

Analysis Plan (SAP) identified three (3) 

management practices, which result in 

the generation of three (3) 

corresponding categories of OBSMs 

with unique physical properties. The 

three (3) identified categories of 

Blanchard’s OBSMs include, Category 1, 

Oil/Water/Solid Separation Sludges 

(K048 through K052, F037 and F038); 

Category 2, Crude Oil and Clarified 

Slurry Oil Sediments (K169 and K170); 

and Category 3, Stabilized Spent 

Hydrotreating and Hydrorefining 

Catalysts (K171 and K172). 

Blanchard’s demonstration utilized a 

commercial indirectly-fired thermal 

desorption unit (‘‘ITDU’’) located at US 

Ecology Texas’ (‘‘USET’’) permitted 

commercial facility in Robstown, Texas. 

Blanchard considered it prudent to 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules 50351 

utilize USET’s ITDU to avoid having to 

invest the significant capital and 

resources required to site and construct 

a full-scale ITDU on-site at Blanchard’s 

GBR facility, prior to receiving an 

approved delisting determination. The 

EPA acknowledged Blanchard’s use of 

USET’s commercial ITDU to perform its 

demonstration, under its approved SAP. 

USET’s commercial ITDU was 

designed and constructed by TD*X 

Associates LP (‘‘TD*X’’), located in 

Beaumont, Texas. TD*X currently 

operates the commercial ITDU on-site at 

USET’s Robstown facility, under 

contract with USET. USET has 

extensive experience in the management 

and processing of Blanchard’s OBSMs, 

and is currently contracted with 

Blanchard to provide such services at 

USET’s Robstown facility. 

Blanchard has entered into a services 

agreement with US Ecology Thermal 

Services LLC (‘‘USETS’’) to provide and 

operate an ITDU, on-site at its GBR 

facility. USETS is the refinery services 

affiliate of USET. Blanchard’s proposed 

ITDU will be designed, constructed and 

operated by TD*X, as part of USETS’s 

services agreement with Blanchard. The 

processing capabilities, efficiencies and 

capacity of Blanchard’s proposed ITDU 

are comparable to USET’s commercial 

ITDU that was utilized under 

Blanchard’s demonstration. 

C. How did Blanchard sample and 

analyze the data in this petition? 

To support its petition, Blanchard 

conducted individual sampling events 

on residual solids resulting from the 

reclamation of Blanchard’s three (3) 

identified categories of OBSMs. Each 

separate sampling event consisted of 

four (4) composite samples taken during 

a 24-hour period of representative 

operation. Each composite sample was 

comprised of individual grab samples 

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

during separate six (6) hour periods of 

the 24-hour sampling event. 

Compositing of samples and 

performance of quality control 

requirements were performed by 

Blanchard’s selected analytical 

laboratory, TestAmerica Laboratories, 

Inc. (‘‘TestAmerica’’). Blanchard 

submitted: Historical information on 

waste generation and management 

practices; and analytical results from 

twelve samples for total and TCLP 

concentrations of constituents of 

concern (COC)s. 

D. What were the results of Blanchard’s 

sample analyses? 

EPA believes that the descriptions of 

the Blanchard analytical 

characterization provide a reasonable 

basis to grant Blanchard’s petition for an 

exclusion of the residual solids. EPA 

believes the data submitted in support 

of the petition show the residual solids 

is non-hazardous. Analytical data for 

the residual solids samples were used in 

the DRAS to develop delisting levels. 

The residual solids from Category 3 can 

only be delisted if stabilization of the 

residual solids occur. Data from the 

stabilized Category 3 residual solids 

demonstrate the concentrations from the 

stabilized residuals meet the delisting 

requirements. The data summaries for 

COCs are presented in Table I. EPA has 

reviewed the sampling procedures used 

by Blanchard and has determined that it 

satisfies EPA criteria for collecting 

representative samples of the variations 

in constituent concentrations in the 

residual solids. In addition, the data 

submitted in support of the petition 

show that COCs in Blanchard’s waste 

are presently below health-based levels 

used in the delisting decision-making. 

EPA believes that Blanchard has 

successfully demonstrated that the 

residual solids are non-hazardous. 

TABLE 1—ANALYTICAL RESULTS/MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATION

[Residual solids—Blanchard Refining Company LLC, Texas City, Texas] 

Constituent 

Maximum total 

concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Maximum 

TCLP 

concentration 

(mg/L) 

Maximum 

TCLP 

delisting level 

(mg/L) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
50352 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—ANALYTICAL RESULTS/MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATION—Continued 

[Residual solids—Blanchard Refining Company LLC, Texas City, Texas] 

Constituent 

Maximum total 

concentration 

(mg/kg) 

Maximum 

TCLP 

concentration 

(mg/L) 

Maximum 

TCLP 

delisting level 

(mg/L) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

level found in one sample. 

E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of 

delisting the waste? 

For this delisting determination, EPA 

used such information gathered to 

identify plausible exposure routes (i.e. 

groundwater, surface water, air) for 

hazardous constituents present in the 

petitioned waste. EPA determined that 

disposal in a landfill is the most 

reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario 

for Blanchard’s petitioned waste. EPA 

applied the Delisting Risk Assessment 

Software (DRAS) described in 65 FR 

58015 (September 27, 2000) and 65 FR 

75637 (December 4, 2000), to predict the 

maximum allowable concentrations of 

hazardous constituents that may be 

released from the petitioned waste after 

disposal and determined the potential 

impact of the disposal of Blanchard’s 

petitioned waste on human health and 

the environment. A copy of this 

software can be found on the world 

wide web at f://www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/ 

wptdiv/hazardous/delisting/drassoftware.html. In assessing potential 

risks to groundwater, EPA used the 

maximum waste volumes and the 

maximum reported extract 

concentrations as inputs to the DRAS 

program to estimate the constituent 

concentrations in the groundwater 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 

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

concentrations (referred to as 

compliance-point concentrations) using 

standard risk assessment algorithms and 

EPA health-based numbers. Using the 

maximum compliance-point 

concentrations and EPA’s Composite 

Model for Underflow Water Migration 

with Transformation Products 

(EPACMTP) fate and transport modeling 

factors, the DRAS further backcalculates the maximum permissible 

waste constituent concentrations not 

expected to exceed the compliancepoint concentrations in groundwater. 

EPA believes that the EPACMTP fate 

and transport model represents a 

reasonable worst-case scenario for 

possible groundwater contamination 

resulting from disposal of the petitioned 

waste in a surface impoundment, 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 

ensures that the waste, once removed 

from hazardous waste regulation, will 

not pose a significant threat to human 

health 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 

from the impoundment). As in the 

above groundwater analyses, the DRAS 

uses the risk level, the health-based 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. The waste must be disposed 

in the type of unit the fate and transport 

model evaluates. 

The DRAS results which calculate the 

maximum allowable concentration of 

chemical constituents in the waste are 

presented in Table I. Based on the 

comparison of the DRAS and TCLP 

Analyses results found in Table I, the 

petitioned waste should be delisted 

because no COCs tested are likely to be 

present or formed as reaction products 

or by-products in Blanchard’s waste. 

F. What did EPA conclude about 

Blanchard’s waste analysis? 

EPA concluded, after reviewing 

Blanchard’s processes, that no other 

hazardous COCs, other than those for 

which tested, are likely to be present or 

formed as reaction products or byproducts in the waste. In addition, on 

the basis of explanations and analytical 

data provided by Blanchard, pursuant to 

§ 260.22, EPA concludes that the 

petitioned waste does not exhibit any of 

the characteristics of ignitability, 

corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity. See 

§§ 261.21, 261.22 and 261.23, 

respectively. 

G. What other factors did EPA consider 

in its evaluation? 

During the evaluation of Blanchard’s 

petition, EPA also considered the 

potential impact of the petitioned waste 

via non-groundwater routes (i.e. air 

emission and surface runoff). With 

regard to airborne dispersion in 

particular, EPA believes that exposure 

to airborne contaminants from 

Blanchard’s petitioned waste is 

unlikely. Therefore, no appreciable air 

releases are likely from Blanchard’s 

residual solids under any likely disposal 

conditions. EPA evaluated the potential 

hazards resulting from the unlikely 

scenario of airborne exposure to 

hazardous constituents released from 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules 50353 

Blanchard’s residual solids 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 Blanchard’s residual solids. 

H. What is EPA’s evaluation of this 

delisting petition? 

The descriptions of Blanchard’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 Blanchard’s 

residual solids will not impose any 

threat to human health and the 

environment. 

Thus, EPA believes Blanchard should 

be granted an exclusion for the residual 

solids. EPA believes the data submitted 

in support of the petition show 

Blanchard’s residual solids is nonhazardous. The data submitted in 

support of the petition show that 

constituents in Blanchard’s waste is 

presently below the compliance point 

concentrations used in the delisting 

decision and would not pose a 

substantial hazard to the environment. 

EPA believes that Blanchard has 

successfully demonstrated that the 

residual solids sludge is non-hazardous. 

EPA therefore, proposes to grant an 

exclusion to Blanchard for the residual 

solids 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 

residual solids. 

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, Blanchard, 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 Blanchard must 

test the residual solids, 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 Blanchard’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 Blanchard manages and 

disposes of any residual solids that 

contains hazardous levels of inorganic 

and organic constituents according to 

Subtitle C of RCRA. Managing the 

residual solids as a hazardous waste 

until the 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 of Blanchard’s residual 

solids as non-hazardous cannot begin 

until the verification sampling is 

completed. 

(3) Verification, Subsequent, and 

Annual Testing Requirements 

Blanchard must complete a rigorous 

verification testing program on the 

residual solids to assure that the solids 

do not exceed the maximum levels 

specified in Paragraph (1) of the 

exclusion language. This verification 

program will occur as residual solids are 

discharged from Blanchard’s 

reclamation process, prior to 

containment and disposal. The volume 

of residual solids generated may not 

exceed 20,000 cubic yards of sludge 

material annually. Any volume of 

residual solids generated in excess of 

20,000 cubic yards during any twelvemonth period must be disposed as 

hazardous wastes. 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 residual 

solids. If the data from the verification 

testing program demonstrate that the 

residual solids meet the delisting levels, 

Blanchard may commence disposing of 

the residual solids as non-hazardous 

solid waste. Blanchard will notify EPA 

in writing, if and when it begins and 

ends disposal of the delisted residual 

solids. 

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions 

If Blanchard significantly changes the 

reclamation process described in its 

petition or starts any processes that 

generate(s) the waste that may or could 

affect the composition or type of waste 

generated as established under 

Paragraph (1) (by illustration, but not 

limitation, changes in equipment or 

operating conditions of the treatment 

process), they must notify EPA in 

writing. Blanchard may no longer 

handle the residual solids generated 

from the new process as non-hazardous 

until they have completed verification 

testing described in Paragraph (3)(A) 

and (B). 

(5) Stabilization Operations 

Blanchard describes an application 

where it may periodically elect to 

modify operating conditions under its 

reclamation process to accommodate the 

addition of chemical stabilization 

reagents. The facility also provided data 

on stabilized materials as part of its 

petition. In the event Blanchard initiates 

the inclusion of stabilization during 

operation of its reclamation process, 

they may no longer handle the residual 

solids generated from the modified 

process as non-hazardous until the 

residual solids meet the delisting levels 

set in Paragraph (1) under initial 

verification testing requirements set in 

Paragraph (3)(A) and verify that no 

additional constituents are leaching 

from the stabilized residual solids. 

Following completion of modified 

operation of its reclamation process, 

Blanchard can resume normal operating 

conditions and testing requirements 

under Paragraph (3), which were in 

place prior to initiating the addition of 

stabilization. 

(6) Data Submittals 

To provide appropriate 

documentation that Blanchard’s 

residual solids meet the delisting levels, 

Blanchard 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 (4) of the 

exclusion language requires that 

Blanchard 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 the volume 

of 20,000 cubic yards of residual solids 

generated annually at Blanchard’s GBR 

facility after successful verification 

testing. EPA would require Blanchard to 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
50354 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

file a new delisting petition for any 

volume of residual solids generated 

during any twelve-month period in 

excess of the 20,000 cubic yards, and 

manage the excess volume of residual 

solids as hazardous waste until EPA 

grants a new exclusion. 

When this exclusion becomes final, 

Blanchard’s management of the residual 

solids covered by this petition would be 

relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction, 

and the residual solids from Blanchard 

will be disposed of in an authorized, 

solid waste landfill (e.g. RCRA Subtitle 

D landfill, commercial/industrial solid 

waste landfill, etc.). 

(7) Reopener 

The purpose of Paragraph (6) of the 

exclusion language is to require 

Blanchard to disclose new or different 

information related to a condition at 

Blanchard’s facility or disposal of the 

waste, if it is pertinent to the delisting. 

Blanchard must also use this procedure, 

if 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 Blanchard 

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 

Procedures 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 delisting 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). 

(8) Notification Requirements 

In order to adequately track wastes 

that have been delisted, EPA is 

requiring that Blanchard provide a onetime notification to any state regulatory 

agency through which or to which the 

delisted waste is being carried. 

Blanchard must provide this 

notification sixty (60) days before 

commencing this activity. 

B. What happens if Blanchard violates 

the terms and conditions? 

If Blanchard 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 

Blanchard to conduct the appropriate 

waste analysis and comply with the 

criteria explained above in Paragraph (1) 

of the exclusion. 

V. Public Comments 

A. How can I as an interested party 

submit comments? 

EPA is requesting public comments 

on this proposed decision. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–R06–RCRA–2017–0556, at https:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

You should submit requests for a 

hearing to Kishor Fruitwala, Section 

Chief (6MM–RP), Multimedia Division, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

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, Suite 

1200, Dallas, Texas 75202. It is available 

for viewing in EPA Freedom of 

Information Act Review Room from 9:00 

a.m. to 4:00 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. Docket materials 

are available either electronically in 

https://www.regulations.gov and you 

may also request the electronic files of 

the docket which do not appear on 

regulations.gov. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

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

not of general applicability and 

therefore, is not a regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). This 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

applies to a particular facility only. 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

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

to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this 

rule will affect only a particular facility, 

it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as specified in 

section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule 

will affect only a particular facility, this 

proposed rule does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’, 

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

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. 

Similarly, because this rule will affect 

only a particular facility, this proposed 

rule does not have tribal implications, 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules 50355 

as specified in Executive Order 13175, 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. This rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is that the Agency 

used DRAS, which considers health and 

safety risks to children, to calculate the 

maximum allowable concentrations for 

this rule. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

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

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. This rule does not involve 

technical standards; thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988, 

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

February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, 

EPA has taken the necessary steps to 

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 

minimize potential litigation, and 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report which includes a 

copy of the rule to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 804 

exempts from section 801 the following 

types of rules: (1) Rules of particular 

applicability; (2) rules relating to agency 

management or personnel; and (3) rules 

of agency organization, procedure, or 

practice that do not substantially affect 

the rights or obligations of non-agency 

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

required to submit a rule report 

regarding today’s action under section 

801 because this is a rule of particular 

applicability. Executive Order (EO) 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

establishes Federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main 

provision directs Federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. The Agency’s risk 

assessment did not identify risks from 

management of this material in an 

authorized, solid waste landfill (e.g. 

RCRA Subtitle D landfill, commercial/ 

industrial solid waste landfill, etc.). 

Therefore, EPA believes that any 

populations in proximity of the landfills 

used by this facility should not be 

adversely affected by common waste 

management practices for this delisted 

waste. 

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

Waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: October 17, 2017. 

Wren Stenger, 

Director, Multimedia Division, Region 6. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 261 

continues to read as follows: 

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

6922, 6924(y) and 6938. 

■ 2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX to part 

261 add the entry ‘‘Blanchard Refining 

Company LLC’’ in alphabetical order 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 

*******

Blanchard Refining 

Company LLC.

Texas City, TX ....... Residual solids (EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers F037) generated at a maximum rate of as 

20,000 cubic yards annually. 

For the exclusion to be valid, Blanchard must implement a verification testing program that 

meets the following Paragraphs: 

(1) All leachable concentrations for those constituents must not exceed the following levels 

measured as mg/L (ppm). The petitioner must use an acceptable leaching method, for example SW–846, Method 1311, to measure constituents in the residual solids leachate. 

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

(B) Organic Constituents of Concern: Acetone—520.0; Anthracene—25.993; Benzene—0.077; 

Benzo(a)pyrene—2.634, Chrysene—7.006; Methylene Chloride—0.0790; Phenanthrene— 

10.626; Phenol—173; Pyrene—4.446. 

(2) Waste Holding and Handling: 

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

under Subtitle C of RCRA, until they have completed verification testing described in Paragraph (3)(A) and (B), as appropriate, and valid analyses show that paragraph (1) is satisfied. 

(B) Levels of constituents measured in the samples of the residual solids that do not exceed 

the levels set forth in Paragraph (1) are nonhazardous. Blanchard can manage and dispose 

the nonhazardous residual solids according to all applicable solid waste regulations. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
50356 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / 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), 

Blanchard must retreat or stabilize the residual solids represented by the sample exceeding 

the delisting levels, until it meets the levels in paragraph (1). Blanchard must repeat the analyses of the retreated residual solids. 

(3) Verification Testing Requirements: 

Blanchard must perform analytical testing by sampling and analyzing the Residual solids as follows: 

(i) Collect representative samples of the Residual solids for analysis of all constituents listed in 

paragraph (1) prior to disposal. 

(ii) The samples for verification testing shall be a representative sample according to appropriate methods. As applicable to the method-defined parameters of concern, analyses requiring the use of SW–846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11 must be used 

without substitution. As applicable, the SW–846 methods might include Methods 0010, 0011, 

0020, 0023A, 0030, 0031, 0040, 0050, 0051, 0060, 0061, 1010A, 1020B,1110A, 1310B, 

1311, 1312, 1320, 1330A, 9010C, 9012B, 9040C, 9045D, 9060A, 9070A (uses EPA Method 

1664, Rev. A), 9071B, and 9095B. Methods must meet Performance Based Measurement 

System Criteria in which the Data Quality Objectives are to demonstrate that samples of the 

Blanchard residual solids are representative for all constituents listed in paragraph (1). 

Blanchard must perform sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures, 

according to SW–846 methodologies. 

(A) Initial Verification Testing: 

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

(i) Collect four (4) representative composite samples of the residual solids at weekly intervals 

after EPA grants the final exclusion. The first composite samples may be taken at any time 

after EPA grants the final approval. Sampling should be performed in accordance with the 

sampling plan approved by EPA in support of the exclusion. 

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

taken that exceeds the delisting levels listed in paragraph (1) for the residual solids must be 

disposed as hazardous waste in accordance with the applicable hazardous waste requirements. 

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

may report its analytical test data for its initial four (4) weekly composite samples to EPA. If 

levels of constituents measured in the samples of the residual solids do not exceed the levels 

set forth in paragraph (1) of this exclusion, Blanchard can manage and dispose the non-hazardous residual solids according to all applicable solid waste regulations. 

(B) Subsequent Verification Testing: 

If Blanchard completes initial verification testing requirements, specified in paragraph (3)(A), 

and no sample contains a constituent at a level which exceeds the limits set forth in paragraph (1), Blanchard may begin subsequent verification testing as follows: 

(i) Blanchard must test representative composite samples of the residual solids for all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at least once per month. 

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

to appropriate methods. 

(iii) Within thirty (30) days after completing each monthly sampling, Blanchard will report its analytical test data to EPA. 

(C) Annual Verification Testing: 

If levels of constituents measured in the samples of the residual solids do not exceed the levels 

set forth in paragraph (1) of this exclusion for six (6) consecutive months of subsequent 

verification testing, Blanchard may begin annual testing as follows: 

(i) Blanchard must test representative composite samples of the residual solids for all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at least once per calendar year. 

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

appropriate methods. 

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

(D) Termination of Organic Testing: 

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

Paragraph (1)(B), until the analytical results submitted under Paragraph (3)(B) show a minimum of three (3) consecutive monthly samples below the delisting levels in Paragraph (1). 

Following receipt of approval from EPA in writing, Blanchard may terminate organic testing. 

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: 

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

that generate(s) the waste that may or could affect the composition or type of waste generated as established under Paragraph (1) (by illustration, but not limitation, changes in 

equipment or operating conditions of the treatment process), they must notify EPA in writing. 

Blanchard may no longer handle the residual solids generated from the new process as nonhazardous until they have completed verification testing described in Paragraph (3)(A) and 

(B), as appropriate, documented that valid analyses show that paragraph (1) is satisfied, and 

received written approval from EPA. 

(5) Stabilization Operation: 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules 50357 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

Blanchard may periodically elect to modify operating conditions to accommodate the addition of 

chemical stabilization reagents during indirect thermal desorption processing. In the event 

that Blanchard initiates the inclusion of stabilization during operation, they may no longer 

handle the residual solids generated from the modified process as nonhazardous until the residual solids meet the delisting levels set in Paragraph (1) under initial verification testing requirements set in paragraph (3)(A) and verify that the stabilization reagents do not add additional constituents to the residual solid leachate. Following completion of modified operation, 

Blanchard can resume normal operating conditions and testing requirements under Paragraph (3), which were in place prior to initiating stabilization during operation. 

(6) Data Submittals: 

Blanchard must submit the information described below. If Blanchard fails to submit the required data within the specified time or maintain the required records on-site for the specified 

time, EPA, at its discretion, will consider this sufficient basis to reopen the exclusion as described in paragraph (6). Blanchard must: 

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

Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202, within the time specified. All supporting data can be submitted on CD– 

ROM or comparable electronic media. 

(B) Compile records of analytical data from paragraph (3), summarized, and maintained on-site 

for a minimum of five years. 

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

inspection. 

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

the truth and accuracy of the data submitted: 

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

statements or representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Federal Code, 

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

that the information contained in or accompanying this document is true, accurate and complete. 

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

(their) truth and accuracy, I certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility 

for the persons who, acting under my direct instructions, made the verification that this information is true, accurate and complete. 

If any of this information is determined by EPA in its sole discretion to be false, inaccurate or 

incomplete, and upon conveyance of this fact to the company, I recognize and agree that this 

exclusion of waste will be void as if it never had effect or to the extent directed by EPA and 

that the company will be liable for any actions taken in contravention of the company’s RCRA 

and CERCLA obligations premised upon the company’s reliance on the void exclusion.’’ 

(7) Reopener. 

(A) If, any time after disposal of the delisted waste Blanchard possesses or is otherwise made 

aware of any environmental data (including but not limited to underflow water data or ground 

water monitoring data) or any other data relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any 

constituent identified for the delisting verification testing is at level higher than the delisting 

level allowed by the Division Director in granting the petition, then the facility must report the 

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

aware of that data. 

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

delisting requirements in paragraph 1, Blanchard must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. 

(C) If Blanchard fails to submit the information described in paragraphs (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. 

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

Division Director will notify the facility in writing of the actions the Division Director believes 

are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing the facility with an opportunity to 

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

have 10 days from receipt of the Division Director’s notice to present such information. 

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

(8) Notification Requirements: 

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

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

decision. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
50358 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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

Facility Address Waste description 

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

which it will transport the delisted waste described above for disposal, 60 days before beginning such activities. 

(B) For onsite disposal, a notice should be submitted to the State to notify the State that disposal of the delisted materials has begun. 

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

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

possible revocation of the decision. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–23683 Filed 10–30–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 395 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2017–0297] 

Hours of Service of Drivers: 

Application for Exemption; National 

Pork Producers Council (NPPC) 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of application for 

exemption; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that the 

National Pork Producers Council 

(NPPC) has requested an exemption 

from the requirement that a motor 

carrier require each of its drivers to use 

an electronic logging device (ELD) no 

later than December 18, 2017, to record 

the driver’s hours-of-service (HOS). 

NPPC states it requests the exemption 

for all livestock haulers as defined in 

the application (i.e., transporters of 

livestock, poultry, aquaculture, and 

insects) to address an incompatibility 

between the FMCSA’s HOS rules and 

the current structure and realities of the 

U.S. livestock industry. NPPC states that 

the livestock haulers will not be 

prepared to meet the December 18, 

2017, compliance date for installing 

ELDs. NPPC believes that the 

exemption, if granted, would achieve a 

level of safety that is equivalent to, or 

greater than, the level that would be 

achieved absent such exemption. 

FMCSA requests public comment on 

NPPC’s application for exemption. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 30, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) Number 

FMCSA–2017–0297 by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. See the Public 

Participation and Request for Comments 

section below for further information. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– 

140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251 

• Each submission must include the 

Agency name and the docket number for 

this notice. Note that DOT posts all 

comments received without change to 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information included in a 

comment. Please see the Privacy Act 

heading below. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments, go to www.regulations.gov at 

any time or visit Room W12–140 on the 

ground level of the West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The on-line FDMS is available 

24 hours each day, 365 days each year. 

Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 

U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments 

from the public to better inform its 

rulemaking process. DOT posts these 

comments, without edit, including any 

personal information the commenter 

provides, to www.regulations.gov, as 

described in the system of records 

notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can 

be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information concerning this notice, 

contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA 

Driver and Carrier Operations Division; 

Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle 

Safety Standards; Telephone: 614–942– 

6477. Email: MCPSD@dot.gov. If you 

have questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, contact Docket 

Services, telephone (202) 366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

FMCSA encourages you to participate 

by submitting comments and related 

materials. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

notice (FMCSA–2017–0297), indicate 

the specific section of this document to 

which the comment applies, and 

provide a reason for suggestions or 

recommendations. You may submit 

your comments and material online or 

by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but 

please use only one of these means. 

FMCSA recommends that you include 

your name and a mailing address, an 

email address, or a phone number in the 

body of your document so the Agency 

can contact you if it has questions 

regarding your submission. 

To submit your comments online, go 

to www.regulations.gov and put the 

docket number, ‘‘FMCSA–2017–0297’’ 

in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box, and click 

‘‘Search.’’ When the new screen 

appears, click on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

button and type your comment into the 

text box in the following screen. Choose 

whether you are submitting your 

comment as an individual or on behalf 

of a third party and then submit. If you 

submit your comments by mail or hand 

delivery, submit them in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying and electronic 

filing. If you submit comments by mail 

and would like to know that they 

reached the facility, please enclose a 

stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope. FMCSA will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period and may grant or 

not grant this application based on your 

comments. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS