Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: February 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 21)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4645-4649]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01fe07-9]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R02-RCRA-2006-0804; FRL-8275-4]

Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (also, ``EPA'' or ``the
Agency'' or ``we'') in this preamble is granting a petition submitted
by General Electric (GE), King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, to exclude (or
delist), on a one-time basis, certain solid wastes that have been
deposited and/or accumulated in two on-site drying beds and two on-site
basins at GE's RCA del Caribe facility in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico from
the lists of hazardous wastes contained in the regulations. These
drying beds and basins were used exclusively for disposal of its
chemical etching wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludge.
This action is specific to the RCA del Caribe site, bears no
precedential effect on other delistings and conditionally excludes the
petitioned waste from the list of hazardous wastes only if the waste is
disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or
registered by a State or Commonwealth to manage industrial solid waste.
The exclusion was proposed on March 19, 2004.

DATES: Effective Date: February 1, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R02-RCRA-2006-0804. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 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, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the RCRA Programs Branch,
Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,

[[Page 4646]]

Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, and are
available for viewing from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. Call Ernst J. Jabouin at (212) 637-4104 for
appointments. The public may copy material from the regulatory docket
at $0.15 per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general and technical information
about this final rule, contact Ernst Jabouin, RCRA Program Branch
(2DEPP-RPB), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290
Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866 or call (212) 637-4104.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:

I. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition, and What Does It Require of Petitioner?
B. What Regulations Allow a Waste To Be Delisted?
II. GE's Delisting Petition
A. What Wastes Did GE Petition the EPA To Delist?
B. What Information Must the Generator Supply?
C. What Information Did GE Submit To Support This Petition?
III. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Who Submitted Comments on the Proposed Rule
B. Comments Received and Responses From EPA
IV. EPA's Evaluation and Final Rule
A. What Decision Is EPA Finalizing and Why?
B. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion?
C. When Is the Delisting Effective?
D. How Does This Action Affect the States?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. What Is a Delisting Petition, and What Does It Require of a Petitioner?

A delisting petition is a request from a facility to the EPA or an
authorized State to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes.
The facility petitions the 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 the 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
(ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and present
sufficient information for the 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 nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics
even if the EPA has ``delisted'' the waste.

B. What Regulations Allow a Waste To Be Delisted?

Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, a generator may petition the EPA to
remove its waste from hazardous waste control by excluding it from the
lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32.
Specifically, 40 CFR 260.20 allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through
266, 268, and 273 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 40
CFR 260.22 provides a generator the opportunity to petition the
Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator specific'' basis from
the hazardous waste lists.

II. GE's Delisting Petition

A. What Wastes Did GE Petition the EPA To Delist?

On November 20, 1997, GE petitioned EPA Region 2 to exclude an
estimated volume of hazardous wastes ranging from 5,000 to 15,000 cubic
yards from the list of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31.
These wastes were generated and disposed of at GE's facility in
Barceloneta, PR, formerly known as the RCA del Caribe facility. This
facility was on EPA's National Priority List and was the subject of a
Superfund Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study and Record of
Decision. The wastes are described in GE's petition as EPA Hazardous
Waste Number F006 wastewater treatment sludge that was generated from
chemical etching operation and accumulated in two drying beds and two
basins where the sludge mixed with soil. F006 is defined as
``Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations except
from the following processes: (1) Sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum;
(2) tin plating on carbon steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on
carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-aluminum steel; (5) cleaning/
stripping associated with tin, zinc and aluminum plating on carbon
steel; and (6) chemical etching and milling of aluminum.'' The
constituents of concern for which F006 is listed are cadmium,
hexavalent chromium, nickel and complexed cyanide.

B. What Information Must the Generator Supply?

A generator must provide sufficient information to allow the EPA to
determine that the waste does not meet any of the criteria for which it
was listed as a hazardous waste. In addition, where there is a
reasonable basis to believe that factors other than those for which the
waste was listed (including additional constituents) could cause the
waste to be hazardous, the Administrator must determine that such
factors do not warrant retaining the waste as hazardous.

C. What Information Did GE Submit To Support This Petition?

To support its petition, GE submitted (1) Descriptions and
schematic diagrams of its manufacturing and wastewater treatment
processes, including historical information on past waste generation
and management practices; (2) detailed chemical and physical analysis
of the sludge; and (3) environmental monitoring data from past and
recent studies of the facility, including groundwater data from wells
located around the two drying beds and two basins. GE also submitted a
signed certification of accuracy and responsibility statement set forth
in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12). By this certification, GE attests that all
submitted information is true, accurate and complete.

III. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion

A. Who Submitted Comments on the Proposed Rule

The EPA received public comments on the proposed notice published
on March 19, 2004 from General Electric Company, King of Prussia, PA
(GE), the petitioner, and by postcard from an individual in New Jersey.

B. Comments Received and Responses From EPA

Comment: GE stated that the in-place verification sampling for the
petitioned waste should not be required since: (1) GE met the criteria
for waste characterization with prior sampling and EPA approved the
delisting based on the prior sampling; (2) GE filed a signed
certification of accuracy and responsibility statement pursuant to 40
CFR 260.22(i)(12); (3) conditions at the facility did not change in a
manner that would suggest that the petitioned waste's characteristics
have changed since the prior sampling was conducted; (4) the sampling
EPA included in the proposed rule was nearly identical to the sampling
that GE had already conducted, and which EPA previously

[[Page 4647]]

approved as a representative sampling protocol for the petitioned
waste, and (5) EPA correspondence and guidance did not support the need
for the verification sampling that was listed in the proposed rule.
Response: EPA agrees that, as a ``one-time'' standard exclusion,
the previous waste characterization is sufficient and that no in-place
verification sampling needs to be performed. Under a closure plan, EPA
has required post-excavation sampling by GE to show that the sludge and
sludge mixed with soil have been removed and there is no waste
remaining in the units at the facility.
Comment: GE stated that the Final Rule should be based upon a
cumulative risk analysis, and specific delisting levels for individual
constituents should not be included in the Final Rule.
Response: EPA believes it is not necessary to address this comment
since GE's wastes passed both cumulative risk analysis and specific
delisting levels for individual constituents. EPA also agrees that, for
a ``one-time'' standard exclusion, the Agency does not need to report
delisting levels in the final rule.
Comment: GE stated that EPA should reevaluate the individual
delisting levels for arsenic for three reasons: (1) Arsenic was not
used in the manufacturing process and should be regarded as a
background constituent that is not subject to regulation; (2) EPA has
considered the presence of naturally occurring arsenic and has
acknowledged that delisting levels for arsenic should be calculated
based on the point-of-exposure (POE) concentration allowed by the
Maximum Concentration Limit (MCL); and (3) since the individual
delisting levels are directly related to the amount of waste being
delisted, EPA inappropriately used the total amount of waste (15,000
cu. yards) in the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) to
calculate the individual delisting level for arsenic, rather than the
amount of waste petitioned to be delisted from the basins only. As
arsenic found in the drying beds and basins is likely due to the
inadvertent mixing of native soil with the sludge, EPA should have excluded
the volume of material outside the drying beds and basins entirely.
Response: GE's wastes passed the arsenic level identified as the
delisting level in the proposed rule. As a result, EPA believes it is
not necessary to address these comments.
Comment: The proposed rule inappropriately included a statement
that the ``exclusion does not change the regulatory status of the
drying beds and on-site basins at the facility in Barceloneta, Puerto
Rico where the waste has been disposed.'' This statement is unnecessary
as it is immaterial to the Rule being proposed, namely whether the
petitioned waste should be excluded. GE has previously corresponded
with EPA regarding the regulatory status of the drying beds and basins,
and expects that EPA will address that issue in a separate context.
Since the comment is immaterial to the Proposed Rule, it should be
removed from the Final Rule.
Response: EPA is not including this statement in the final rule as
its inclusion is not critical in the particular circumstances of this
site. GE has submitted a plan entitled ``Clean Closure Plan for Waste
Units--Former RCA Del Caribe Facility'' (the ``Plan''), which EPA
believes will achieve clean closure of the units.
Comment: EPA must do independent tests. GE polluted the Hudson
River horribly so to rely on this company's representation on what is
hazardous and what is not seems ludicrous. They have polluted before!
GE prefers to spend its money on Jack Welch not being careful on the
earth! The testing listed seems far too little to be acceptable. Page 5
details what the waste is NOT FROM rather than focusing on where the
waste is FROM! Public is NOT being told exactly what origin/processes
are involved. Is this withholding of information deliberate? Chromium
is extremely TOXIC! I recommend holding GE to much stricter standards.
Response: The waste is F006 wastewater treatment sludge that was
generated from chemical etching operation. The tests of the waste
conducted by GE have been independently validated by independent
validators. Also, as stated above in paragraph II.C., GE has signed a
certification of accuracy and responsibility statement set forth in 40
CFR 260.22(i)(12). By this certification, GE attests that all submitted
information is true, accurate and complete. GE analyzed the wastes and
groundwater for arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, hexavalent
chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, and silver; for Appendix IX
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs); and, for Appendix IX Semi-Volatile
Organic Compounds (SVOCs). Characteristic testing of soil and sludge
samples also included analysis of ignitability and corrosivity. EPA
believes appropriate standards have been satisfied.

IV. EPA's Evaluation and Final Rule

A. What Decision Is EPA Finalizing and Why?

Today the EPA is finalizing an exclusion for an estimated volume
ranging from 5,000 to 15,000 cubic yards of WWTP sludge resulting from
the chemical etching operation at its facility in RCA del Caribe in
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico.
GE petitioned EPA to exclude, or delist, the WWTP sludge because GE
believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the criteria for which
it was listed and that there are no additional constituents or factors
which could cause the waste to be hazardous. Review of this petition
included consideration of the original listing criteria, as well as the
additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 (HSWA). See section 222 of HSWA, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.)
6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22.
On March 19, 2004, EPA proposed to exclude or delist GE's WWTP
sludge resulting from the chemical etching operation from the list of
hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31 and accepted public comment on the
proposed rule (69 FR 12995). EPA considered all comments received, and
we believe that this waste should be excluded from hazardous waste control.

B. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion?

GE must dispose of the WWTP sludge resulting from the chemical
etching operation at its facility in Barceloneta, PR, formerly known as
the RCA del Caribe facility, in a Subtitle D landfill which is
permitted, licensed, or registered by a State or Commonwealth to manage
industrial waste. Any amount of WWTP sludge which is in excess of
15,000 cubic yards is not considered delisted under this exclusion.
This exclusion is effective only if all conditions contained in today's
rule are satisfied.

C. When Is the Delisting Effective?

This rule is effective February 1, 2007. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. This rule
reduces rather than increases the existing requirements and, therefore,
is effective immediately upon publication under the Administrative
Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

D. How Does This Action Affect the States or the Commonwealth?

Because EPA is issuing today's exclusion under the Federal RCRA
delisting program, only States or Commonwealth subject to Federal

[[Page 4648]]

RCRA delisting provisions would be affected. This would exclude States
or Commonwealth who have received authorization from the EPA to make
their own delisting decisions.
EPA allows the States or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to impose
their own non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more stringent than
the 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 or
Commonwealth. Because a dual system (that is, both Federal (RCRA) and
State or Commonwealth (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's
waste, the EPA urges petitioner to contact the pertinent State or the
Commonwealth regulatory authority to establish the status of its wastes
under the State or Commonwealth law.
EPA has also authorized some States to administer a delisting
program in place of the federal program to make State delisting
decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized
States. If GE transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste
in any State with delisting authorization, GE must obtain a delisting
from that State before it can manage the waste as nonhazardous in the
State. Delisting petitions approved by the EPA Administrator under 40
CFR 260.22 are effective only after the final rule has been published
in the Federal Register.

V. 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 final 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 final rule does not have tribal implications,
as specified in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, 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 today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of
particular applicability.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: Section 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).

Dated: January 26, 2007.
Walter Mugdan,
Director, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, Region 2.

? For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is 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.

40 CFR Part 261, Appendix IX

? 2. Table 1 of appendix IX of part 261 is amended by adding the
following entry in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261--Waste Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and 260.22

[[Page 4649]]

Table 1.--Waste Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
GE's Former RCA del Caribe.............................. Barceloneta, PR........................ Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludges from
chemical etching operation (EPA Hazardous Waste No.
F006) and contaminated soil mixed with sludge. This
is a one-time exclusion for a range of 5,000 to
15,000 cubic yards of WWTP sludge on condition of
disposal in a Subtitle D landfill. This exclusion
was published on February 1, 2007. 1. Reopener
Language--(a) If, anytime after disposal of the
delisted waste, GE discovers that any condition or
assumption related to the characterization of the
excluded waste which was used in the evaluation of
the petition or that was predicted through modeling
is not as reported in the petition, then GE must
report any information relevant to that condition or
assumption, in writing, to the Director of the
Division of Environmental Planning and Protection in
Region 2 within 10 days of first of discovering that
information. (b) Upon receiving information
described in paragraph (a) of this section,
regardless of its source, the Director will
determine whether the reported condition requires
further action. Further action may include repealing
the exclusion, modifying the exclusion, or other
appropriate action deemed necessary to protect human
health or the environment.
2. Notifications--GE must provide a one-time written
notification to any State or Commonwealth Regulatory
Agency in any State or Commonwealth to which or
through which the waste described above will be
transported for disposal at least 60 days prior to
the commencement of such activities. Failure to
provide such a notification will result in a
violation of the waste exclusion and a possible
revocation of the decision.

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E7-1618 Filed 1-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion

Local Navigation