[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60975-60985]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23830]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[EPA-R10-RCRA-2019-0662; SW-FRL-10001-79-Region 10]

Hazardous Waste Management System; Proposed Exclusion for
Identifying and Listing Hazardous Waste

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (also, ``the Agency'' or
``we'' in this preamble) is proposing to grant three petitions
submitted jointly by Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC (Emerald) and Fire
Mountain Farms, Inc. (FMF) (Petitioners), in Lewis County, Washington
to exclude (or ``delist'') a one-time amount up to 20,100 cubic yards
of U019 (benzene) and U220 (toluene) mixed material from the list of
federal hazardous wastes. These wastes are limited to those associated
with closure of hazardous waste management units at three facilities
owned and operated by FMF pursuant to closure plans to be approved by
the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). The Agency is
proposing to grant the petition based on an evaluation of waste-
specific information provided by the Petitioners. This proposed
decision, if finalized, conditionally excludes the petitioned waste
from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 12, 2019.
Requests for an informal hearing must reach the EPA by November 27,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
RCRA-2019-0662 using one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Mail: to Dr. David Bartus, Office of Air and Waste, EPA,
Region 10, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 155, M/S 15-H04, Seattle, Washington
98101.
     Hand Delivery: to Dr. David Bartus, Office of Air and
Waste, EPA, Region 10, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 155, OAW-150, Seattle,
Washington 98101. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours
of operation. Please contact David Bartus at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-
2019-0662. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your

name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any physical media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses.
    Any person may request an informal hearing on this proposed
decision by filing a request with Timothy Hamlin, Director, Office of
Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division, EPA, Region 10, 1200 6th
Ave., Suite 155, M/S 15-H04, Seattle, Washington 98101. The request
must contain the information prescribed in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations CFR 260.20(d).
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the RCRA Records Center, 16th floor, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 6th
Avenue, Suite 155, M/S 16-C09, Seattle, Washington 98101. This facility
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. We recommend you telephone David Bartus at (206) 553-
2804 before visiting the Region 10 office. The public may copy material
from the regulatory docket at 15 cents per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Dr. David Bartus, EPA, Region 10,
1200 6th Avenue, Suite 155, M/S 15-H04, Seattle, Washington 98070;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    As discussed in Section V below, Ecology is evaluating the
Petitioners' petitions under state authority. Information on Ecology's
action may be found at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1907021.html.

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

I. Overview Information
II. Background
    A. What is are the listed wastes associated with this petition?
    B. What is a delisting petition?
    C. What factors did EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a
delisting petition?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
    A. What waste did the Petitioners petition EPA to delist?
    B. How did the Petitioners generate the waste?
    C. How did the Petitioners sample and analyze the petitioned
waste?
    D. What were the results of EPA's analysis of the Petitioner's
waste?
    E. How did the EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
    F. What are EPA's proposed findings regarding the petitioned
wastes?
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
    A. How will the Petitioners manage the waste if it is delisted?
    B. What are the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the waste?
    C. How frequently must the Petitioners test the waste?
    D. What data must the Petitioners submit?
    E. What happens if the Petitioners fail to meet the conditions
of the exclusion?
    F. What must the Petitioners do if the process changes?
V. When would the EPA finalize the proposed delisting exclusion?
VI. How would this action affect states?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Overview Information

    The EPA is proposing to grant three petitions submitted jointly by
Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC (Emerald) and Fire Mountain Farms, Inc
(FMF) (Petitioners), in Lewis County, Washington to exclude (or
``delist'') a one-time combined amount up to 20,100 cubic yards of U019
(benzene) and U220 (toluene) hazardous wastes from the list of federal
hazardous waste set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations CFR
261.33.\1\ These three petitions apply to three separate facilities
owned and operated by FMF, and each manage wastes that are sufficiently
similar that the EPA is electing to propose its decision to grant the
petitions concurrently through this Federal Register notice. The
Petitioners claim that each of the petitioned wastes do not meet the
criteria for which the EPA listed it, and that there are no additional
constituents or factors which could cause the waste to be hazardous.
These exclusions apply only to wastes associated with closure of
hazardous waste management units at the three FMF facilities pursuant
to an approved closure plan. The exclusion is effective when the wastes
are removed from the respective hazardous waste management units, or
otherwise generated pursuant to the corresponding approved closure
plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The facility-specific waste volumes are documented in
Section III.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review described in Section III, we propose to make a
determination that the petitioned wastes are non-hazardous with respect
to listed waste codes that originally applied. As part of our
supporting analysis, we reviewed the description of the process which
generated the wastes and the analytical data submitted by the
Petitioners. We believe that the petitioned wastes do not meet the
criteria for which the waste was originally listed, that they do not
exhibit any hazardous waste characteristic, and that there are no other
factors which might cause the waste to be hazardous. Accordingly, EPA
is proposing to find that the petitioned wastes may be safely managed
as non-listed hazardous wastes. EPA notes that while the burden of
demonstrating that a delisted waste does not also exhibit a hazardous
characteristic remains with the facility, the data provided by the
Petitioners demonstrate that the candidate wastes do not exhibit a
hazardous characteristic. Subject to state-only requirements within the
state of Washington, or federally-authorized or state-only requirements
in other states where the subject wastes may be disposed of, the
petitioned wastes must be disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is
permitted, licensed, or registered by a State to manage industrial
solid waste.

II. Background

A. What are the listed wastes associated with this petition?

    The EPA published an amended list of discarded commercial chemical
products, off-specification species, container residues and spill
residues thereof on November 25, 1980 (45 FR 78541), as part of its
final and interim final regulations implementing Sec.  3001 of Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has amended this list
several times and published it in 40 CFR 261.33.
    We list these wastes as hazardous because: (1) They typically and
frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous
wastes identified in 40 CFR part 261 Subpart C (that is, ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or (2) they meet the criteria
for listing contained in Sec.  261.11(a)(2) or (3).

B. What is a delisting petition?

    Individual waste streams may vary depending on raw materials,
industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste from a
source listed in the regulations as ``hazardous'' is by definition
hazardous, a specific waste from an individual generating facility and
from a source meeting the listing

description may produce wastes that vary significantly from the wastes
EPA considered in establishing the waste listing.
    A procedure to exclude or delist a waste is provided in 40 CFR
260.20 and 260.22 which allows a person or a facility to submit a
petition to the EPA or to an authorized state demonstrating that a
specific waste from a particular generating facility should not be
regulated as hazardous.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Washington State's promulgated regulations at WAC 173-303-
910(3) correspondence to the federal regulation. However, Washington
State has not received final authorization to implement these
regulations in lieu of federal program. As such, they are effective
concurrent with 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 on a state-only basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that a waste does
not meet any of the criteria for listed wastes in 40 CFR 261.11 and
that the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics of ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, or toxicity.
The petitioner must present sufficient information for EPA to decide
whether any factors in addition to those for which the waste was listed
warrant retaining it as a hazardous waste. (See 40 CFR 260.22 and 42
U.S.C. 6921(f).) EPA's basis for originally listing the wastes
associated with this petition may be found at 45 FR 78532.
    If a delisting petition is granted, the specific waste(s)
identified in the delisting will be excluded from the associated
lists(s) of hazardous waste in 40 CFR part 261 Subpart D so long as
conditions in the delisting are met. A waste which is so excluded,
however, may still exhibit a characteristic and thus be a hazardous
waste by operation of 40 CFR part 261 Subpart C. EPA notes that while
the burden of demonstrating that a delisted waste does not also exhibit
a hazardous characteristic remains with the facility, the data provided
by the Petitioners demonstrate that the candidate wastes do not exhibit
a hazardous characteristic.

C. What factors did EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a
delisting petition?

    In reviewing this petition, we considered the original listing
criteria and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See Sec.  222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2) through (4). We evaluated the
petitioned wastes against the listing criteria and factors cited in
Sec.  261.11(a)(2) and (3).
    In addition to the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a), 261.11(a)(2) and
(3), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background documents for the listed
wastes, EPA also considered any factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which we listed the waste if these
additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous.
    Our proposed decision to grant the petitions to delist the waste
from the identified FMF facilities in Lewis County, Washington is based
on our evaluation of the wastes for factors or criteria which could
cause the waste to be hazardous. These factors included: (1) Whether
the waste is considered acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity of the
constituents; (3) the concentration of the constituents in the waste;
(4) the tendency of the constituents to migrate and to bioaccumulate;
(5) the persistence in the environment of any constituents once
released from the waste; (6) plausible and specific types of management
of the petitioned waste; (7) the quantity of waste produced; and (8)
waste variability.
    The EPA must also consider as hazardous wastes mixtures containing
listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or
disposing of listed hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and
(c)(2)(i), called the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively. Mixture and derived-from wastes are also eligible for
exclusion but remain hazardous until excluded.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data

A. What waste did the Petitioners petition the EPA to delist?

    Emerald manufactures various organic chemicals used as artificial
flavors and fragrances, food preservatives, plasticizers, and
intermediates at their facility in Kalama, Washington. Most of the
chemicals produced are derived from toluene or from the oxidation
products of toluene, including benzoic acid and benzaldehyde.
Additional products are produced as derivatives of benzoic acid and
benzaldehyde. Products are typically purified by continuous or batch
distillation. In conjunction with its manufacturing processes, Emerald
operates an industrial wastewater treatment system, consisting of an
anaerobic digestion process and an aerobic oxidation system, both of
which are biological treatment systems very similar to municipal
wastewater treatment systems. This treatment system produces industrial
wastewater treatment plant biological solids (IWBS). As documented in
the Petitioner's delisting petition, the IWBS designates as U019
(benzene) and U220 (toluene).
    FMF operates receiving, storage, treatment, and land application
facilities in Lewis County, Washington for wastewater treatment plant
treatment solids received from municipal, industrial, and private
wastewater treatment plants. FMF is not permitted or otherwise
authorized to manage, treat, or dispose of hazardous or dangerous
wastes.\3\ Emerald contracted with FMF to land apply Emerald's IWBS
beginning in October 1995. FMF mixed Emerald's IWBS with treatment
solids from other facilities and land applied or stored the mixed IWBS/
treatment solids wastes at several FMF facilities. The RCRA rules
require that listed hazardous wastes, when mixed with other materials,
continue to be regulated as listed hazardous wastes (40 CFR 261.3). The
mixed IWBS/treatment solids wastes are currently stored at three FMF
facilities: Burnt Ridge located at 856 Burnt Ridge Road, Onalaska,
Washington; Newaukum Prairie located at 349 State Route 508, Chehalis,
Washington; and Big Hanaford located at 307 Big Hanaford Road,
Centralia, Washington.\4\ Under a separate action (See footnote 4), the
Washington State Department of Ecology is requiring that Emerald and
FMF remove these wastes from the three units according to closure plans
approved pursuant to WAC 173-303-610.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Within Ecology's authorized hazardous waste program,
``hazardous'' refers to those wastes regulated by the federal RCRA
program. ``Dangerous'' refers to additional wastes that Ecology's
regulates as a broader in scope provision of their program.
    \4\ The Washington State Department of Ecology has entered into
a litigation settlement (Docket Entry 3) with Fire Mountain Farms
and Emerald-Kalama that, in part, requires closure of the units
managing dangerous waste considered int his proposed delisting rule.
In this context, today's proposed delisting rule is a ``one-time''
delisting that, if finalized, will allow the fixed volume of wastes
to be generated pursuant to closure of these three units as non-
hazardous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Petitioners have requested that up to 4,700 cubic yards at the
Burnt Ridge facility, 10,400 cubic yards at the Newaukum Prairie
facility, and 5,000 cubic yards at the Big Hanaford facility of IWBS/
treatment solids be excluded from the list of hazardous wastes.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The delisting petitions submitted by the Petitioners
requested exclusion of a waste volumes less than those cited in this
proposed rule. Because these wastes will be managed on a one-time
basis as part of closure of the respective waste management units at
the three FMF facilities, the EPA and Ecology have determined that
it is appropriate to propose exclusion of a waste volume double that
in the respective delisting petitions as a safety measure that will
account for any additional wastes that may be generated pursuant to
closure activities such as liners, debris, etc. The EPA notes that
the requested quantity of wastes in the delisting petition itself
was expressed on a mass (ton) basis. The ``Waste Characterization
Plan, Fire Mountain Farms, Mixed Material Storage Units, Lewis
County, Washington'' included in the petition, however, estimates
the quantity of waste on a volumetric basis. The expanded waste
volume in this proposed delisting reflect a doubling of the
volumetric waste volumetric estimate documented in the Waste
Characterization Plan.

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

B. How did the Petitioners generate the waste?

    In a delisting petition for its IWBS wastes separate from today's
proposed exclusions, Emerald documented that its industrial wastewater
treatment system from which IWBS is derived manages wastewaters from
multiple sources within the facility. The first source consists of
contaminated groundwater from an extensive groundwater recovery system
to prevent contaminated water from leaving the plant site. Water pumped
from the North Impact Area (NIA), West Impact Area (WIA), and
Intermediate Sand Recovery Wells (ISRW) contains commercial product
toluene from historical releases and therefore the IWBS carry the
listed hazardous waste code U220 (toluene). Historical data from 2014
through 2017 indicates that an average of 33.1 million gallons per year
with a maximum of 38.6 million gallon per year was treated in the
wastewater treatment unit (WWTU) that generates IWBS. The second source
consists of stormwater that falls on the manufacturing process areas of
the facility, which may become contaminated by spills or releases of
the various raw materials, intermediates, products or byproducts of its
manufacturing operations. The third source consists of process
wastewater from manufacturing processes. These second and third sources
may be impacted by trace amounts of pure product benzene from de
minimus spills that are captured by the treatment system; therefore,
the IWBS from the second and third source categories carry the listed
hazardous waste code U019 (benzene).
    Emerald provided the EPA with a detailed process flow diagram
(Docket Entry 1) of the overall wastewater management system that
documents the source of all wastewaters from which the candidate IWBS
are generated and the various management processes that are applied to
the wastewaters. Generally, process wastewater expected to have higher
quantities of organic constituents from process units is routed to
either the anaerobic digesters (ANTs) or to the aerobic digesters
(BIOX), depending upon the types and concentrations of chemicals
present. All of the effluent from ANTs is routed to BIOX for final
treatment. Groundwater and stormwater \6\ with a low chemical oxygen
demand (COD) are routed to the aerobic digesters (BIOX). This process
flow arrangement, including flexibility to re-route wastewaters
depending on their chemical makeup, helps ensure that concentrated free
product from manufacturing process wastes or from spills is not
introduced into the balance of the wastewater treatment system, and
that the concentration of waste constituents entering the treatment
system is maintained in a range that fosters microbial degradation.
Wastewaters from the API separator are then routed to the aerobic
digester system. The use of the API separator for wastewaters expected
to have higher levels of organic constituents helps ensure that
significant excursions in waste composition do not adversely affect
performance of the wastewater treatment system. The effluent of the
ANTS system is then routed to the aerobic digester and sludge
filtration systems. Groundwater and stormwater expected to have lower
COD levels bypass the API separator and are fed directly to the aerobic
digester treatment system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Emerald also provide the EPA with a map of the facility
indicating areas where stormwater is collected from various areas of
the facility. See Docket Entry 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the Burnt Ridge facility, FMF mixed IWBS from Emerald, treatment
solids from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants, and
cow manure water runoff from a barn in a surface impoundment that has
approximate dimensions of 220 feet on each side and 14 feet deep. Once
FMF mixed the IWBS with the other material, the mixed material became
regulated as U019 and U220 listed hazardous wastes as noted earlier.
    At the Newaukum Prairie facility, FMF mixed IWBS from Emerald and
treatment solids from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment
plants in a surface impoundment that has approximate dimensions of 220
feet on each side and 12 feet deep. Once FMF mixed the IWBS with the
other material, the mixed material became regulated as U019 and U220
listed hazardous wastes.
    At the Big Hanaford facility, FMF mixed IWBS from Emerald and
treatment solids from municipal and private wastewater treatment plants
in a roofed concrete panel storage unit that has approximate dimensions
of 100 feet by 60 feet and 11.5 feet deep. Once FMF mixed the IWBS with
the other material, the mixed material became regulated as U019 and
U220 listed hazardous wastes.

C. How did the Petitioners sample and analyze the petitioned wastes?

    FMF conducted an investigation of the wastes at each of the three
storage units in September 2014.\7\ Three composite samples of the
mixed IWBS/treatment solids wastes were collected from each storage
unit. At Burnt Ridge and Newaukum Prairie, each composite sample
consisted of nine grab samples collected from various depths. Each
composite sample collected at Big Hanaford consisted of six grab
samples collected from various depths.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This investigation is documented in the first report in
Appendix C of the three delisting petitions (Docket Entries 7-9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each composite sample was analyzed for the following constituents
or constituent groups: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOCs), total metals, total cyanide, and total
solids. The specific analytes included in the analysis are defined by
the analytical method used for each group.
    In addition, two composite samples from the Newaukum Prairie
storage unit and one composite sample each from the Burnt Ridge and Big
Hanaford storage units were analyzed for the following parameters or
constituent groups: Pesticides; polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
Aroclors; dioxins and furans, reported as 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzodioxin toxicity equivalence quotient (2,3,7,8-TCDD
TEQ); ammonia; Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN); pH, nitrite; and nitrate
+ nitrite (the concentration of nitrate was calculated by the
analytical laboratory). Fourteen grab samples from the Newaukum Prairie
storage unit and seven grab samples each from the Burnt Ridge and Big
Hanaford storage units were analyzed for total fecal coliform.
    Emerald conducted additional sampling of the mixed IWBS/treatment
solids wastes at each of the three storage units in August and October
2017.\8\ Emerald performed the additional sampling based on the
preliminary delisting levels and the September 2014 investigation.
Samples from the storage units at Burnt Ridge, Newaukum Prairie, and
Big Hanaford were analyzed for selected volatile organic compounds
(acetone, benzene, methanol, and toluene), total solids, and pH.
Samples from Big Hanaford were analyzed for total acrylonitrile;
cobalt; 4-methylphenol; 2,4-dinitrotoluene; 2,6-dinitrotoluene; and
naphthalene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Results of these sampling activities are documented in the
third report in Appendix C of the three delisting petitions (Docket
Entries 7-9).

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

D. What were the results of EPA's analysis of the Petitioner's waste?

    The first step in the EPA's analysis of the petitioned wastes was
to establish a list of potential constituents of concern (COCs) to
guide further analysis of the waste and to establish initial delisting
exclusion criteria. The EPA applied four criteria for identifying
potential constituents of concern: (1) Whether the constituent is used
as an input to, or created as an intermediate, byproduct or finished
product from Emerald's production processes; (2) whether the IWBS
designates as hazardous for a particular constituent; (3) the expected
frequency of occurrence in the IWBS; and (4) the toxicity of the
constituent of concern. The EPA also considered results of the 2014
waste characterization study in Appendix C of the three petitions, as
well as any additional constituents that may be typically found in
municipal wastewater treatment biosolids.
    The EPA first considered organic COCs. Based on the hazardous waste
codes associated with wastewater that ultimately results in generation
of IWBS (D018, U019, U220, U154 and U001), the EPA determined that
benzene, toluene, methanol and acetaldehyde are COCs.\9\ The EPA notes
that benzene is generally regarded as difficult to treat and is an
excellent indicator of overall performance of the WWTU processes, and
the ability of the WWTU to effectively treat other organic constituents
other than benzene. Based on principal products of Emerald's processes,
the EPA determined that additional organic constituents including
benzaldehyde, benzoic acid, formic acid, benzyl alcohol, and phenol
should be retained as COCs. While at least some of these constituents
are associated with products for human consumption or exposure, they
have a level of toxicity that warrants retention as COCs for purposes
of evaluating the candidate waste stream. Although several additional
organic constituents are associated with Emerald's production
processes, they are associated with products for human consumption or
exposure, such as food preservatives and vitamins, fragrances and
perfumes, and sunscreens, and do not have a degree of toxicity that
warrants retention as COCs (Docket Entry 17). In addition, most if not
all these additional organic constituents are highly amenable to
biological treatment in the WWTS and are not expected to be present in
the IWBS at levels anywhere near health-based levels that would be of
concern in the delisting process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As noted in the delisting petition, IWBS designate only for
U019 (benzene) and U220 (toluene) because due to an exception to
RCRA's derived from rule, certain codes applicable to the wastewater
do not carry through to the IWBS. However, as part of its evaluation
of the IWBS waste stream and identification of COCs, the EPA also
considered hazardous waste codes applicable to the wastewaters
managed by the WWTU generating IWBS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Emerald's production process uses a range of catalysts, including
several metallic catalysts that include cobalt, copper and nickel. On
this basis, cobalt, copper and nickel are identified as constituents of
concern. Although these three metals are not hazardous constituents,
they are retained as ``other factors'' that may cause the waste to be
retained as hazardous. Other metallic constituents are reported to have
been detected in the IWBS waste stream that do not have a clear source
related to Emerald's organic manufacturing process. These constituents
include barium and zinc. Barium is a hazardous constituent and is
present at levels in the IWBS so barium is retained as an ``other
factor'' that may cause the waste to be retained as hazardous. Zinc is
a common contaminant in industrial wastewater and is found in the IWBS
at concentrations as high as 1,350 ppm dry weight, so zinc is retained
as a constituent as an ``other factor'' that may cause the waste to be
retained as hazardous.
    In Emerald's production process, cobalt is used as a catalyst in
both its metallic form (sponge cobalt) and as cobalt acetate. Although
cobalt acetate poses environmental and human health risks, the acetate
functional group is expected to be readily degraded in the WWTS,
leaving metallic cobalt in the IWBS. Further, cobalt acetate is soluble
in water, so that any remaining cobalt acetate that is not degraded to
metallic cobalt in the WWTS is likely to partition into the effluent
wastewater managed separately from the IWBS. Thus, all forms of cobalt
are considered to be metallic for purposes of the delisting evaluation
of Emerald's IWBS.
    Emerald's IWBS only constitute a small percentage (between 5% and
8%) of the total mixed IWBS/treatment solids wastes at each of the
three storage units.
    With respect to the biosolids component of the petitioned waste,
the 2014 waste characterization report in Appendix C of the delisting
petitions considered a very broad range of potential constituents of
concern. The EPA first compared these characterization data reports to
preliminary delisting levels (See the second report in Appendix C of
the delisting petitions) calculated using the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS) model.\10\ Any detected constituents at concentrations
less than the preliminary delisting levels were removed from further
consideration.\11\ The remaining detected constituents exceeding a
preliminary delisting level were retained for further evaluation in the
2017 waste characterization plan, also included in the second report in
Appendix C of the delisting petitions. Results from this latter
characterization work were then used as input to the DRAS modelling
program discussed in the following section. After consideration of
constituents typically found in biosolids (for example, as documented
in the U.S. EPA National Sewage Sludge Survey available at https://www.epa.gov/biosolids/sewage-sludge-surveys), the EPA determined that
no additional constituents of concern should be added for consideration
in the delisting process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Preliminary delisting levels were obtained for all DRAS
constituents on a unit-specific basis considering the expected waste
volume associated with each unit to be closed.
    \11\ The specific decision criteria that considered total
concentrations, bounding leachability, and laboratory analysis
detection limits are documented in the second report in Appendix C
of the delisting petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final list of constituents of concern evaluated in the
delisting process are documented in Tables 2-4 below.

E. How did the EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?

    For this delisting determination, we evaluated the risk that the
waste would be disposed of as a non-hazardous waste in a RCRA Subtitle
D landfill and we considered transport of waste constituents through
ground water, surface water and air. We evaluated the Petitioner's
analysis of petitioned waste using the DRAS software to predict the
concentration of hazardous constituents that might be released from the
petitioned waste and to determine if the waste would pose a threat to
human health and the environment. The DRAS software and associated
documentation can be found at www.epa.gov/hw/hazardous-waste-delisting-risk-assessment-software-dras.
    To predict the potential for release to groundwater from landfilled
wastes and subsequent routes of exposure to a receptor, the DRAS uses
dilution attenuation factors derived from the EPA's Composite Model for
leachate migration with Transformation Products. From a release to
ground water, the DRAS considers routes of exposure to a human receptor
through ingestion of contaminated groundwater,

inhalation from groundwater while showering and dermal contact from
groundwater while bathing.
    From a release to surface water by erosion of waste from an open
landfill into storm water run-off, DRAS evaluates the exposure to a
human receptor by fish ingestion and ingestion of drinking water. From
a release of waste particles and volatile emissions to air from the
surface of an open landfill, DRAS considers routes of exposure of
inhalation of volatile constituents, inhalation of particles, and air
deposition of particles on residential soil and subsequent ingestion of
the contaminated soil by a child. The technical support document and
the user's guide to DRAS are available at https://www.epa.gov/hw/hazardous-waste-delisting-risk-assessment-software-dras.
    The EPA used the following inputs to its DRAS analysis of the
Petitioner's wastes, as summarized in Table 2.

              Table 1--Emerald and FMF Delisting DRAS Input
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DRAS Input parameter              Value              Assumptions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management Unit Type..  Landfill \12\.......  Waste planned for
                                                     disposal in a
                                                     municipal solid
                                                     waste landfill.
Waste Volume--one-year batch  4,700 cubic yards     Conservative
                               for Burnt Ridge;      estimation value
                               10,400 cubic yards    based on facility-
                               for Newaukum          specific
                               Prairie; 5,000        information.
                               cubic yards for Big
                               Hanaford.
Waste Management Unit Active  One Year Batch......  N/A--DRAS does not
 Life.                                               allow a year input
                                                     for the One Year
                                                     Batch.
Target risk--carcinogenic     1 x 10-5............  Based on risk ranges
 risk level.                                         in the EPA's RCRA
                                                     Delisting Technical
                                                     Support Document
                                                     (2008).
Target risk--health quotient  1.0.................  Based on risk ranges
                                                     in the EPA's RCRA
                                                     Delisting Technical
                                                     Support Document
                                                     (2008).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At a target cancer risk of 1 x 10-\5\ and a target
hazard quotient of 1.0, the DRAS program determined maximum allowable
concentrations for each constituent in both the waste and the leachate.
The EPA used the maximum estimated waste volumes and the maximum
reported total and estimated leachate concentrations as inputs to
estimate the constituent concentrations in the ground water, soil,
surface water or air. Tables 2, 3, and 4 document the constituent-
specific maximum total and TCLP sample results used as input to the
DRAS analysis, and the resulting modeling results from DRAS for the
Burnt Ridge, Newaukum Prairie, and Big Hanaford storage units,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Although two of the petitioned waste streams originate in a
surface impoundment, the wastes being delisted will be removed from
the surface impoundments through an approved closure process. The
removed wastes will be managed in accordance with the closure plan
to allow disposal in a solid waste landfill. Therefore, the waste
management unit used for modelling waste performance using DRAS is
``Landfill'' for all three units.

                                            Table 2--Sampling Data and DRAS Modeling Results for Burnt Ridge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Maximum observed                                          Modeling results
                                             concentration \1\       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     --------------------------------           Total concentrations                       TCLP concentration
       Constituent of concern                                        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Total \1\ (mg/    TCLP (mg/L)       Limiting                                  Limiting
                                            kg)             \4\         concentration    Limiting pathway \3\     concentration    Limiting pathway \3\
                                                                         (mg/kg) \2\                               (mg/L) \ 2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barium..............................             N/A             N/A        21,100,000  Air Particulate                    1,090  Maximum Contaminant
                                                                                Inhalation.                               Level.
Cobalt..............................              48           0.108            94,400  Air Particulate                     6.28  Groundwater Ingestion.
                                                                                Inhalation.
Copper..............................             417             N/A        18,200,000  Fish Ingestion........               716  Maximum Contaminant
                                                                                Level.
Nickel..............................              45             N/A         3,540,000  Air Particulate                      408  Groundwater Ingestion.
                                                                                Inhalation.
Zinc................................             969             N/A        47,100,000  Fish Ingestion........             6,170  Groundwater Ingestion.
Benzaldehyde........................             N/A             N/A     2,320,000,000  Soil Ingestion........             1,760  Groundwater Ingestion.
Benzene.............................         0.00101             N/A         1,600,000  Air Volatile                        2.35  Maximum Contaminant
                                                                                Inhalation.                               Level.
Benzoic Acid........................             N/A             N/A    83,100,000,000  Fish Ingestion........            70,400  Groundwater Ingestion.
Formic Acid.........................             N/A             N/A         8,080,000  Air Volatile                       1,130  Groundwater
                                                                                Inhalation.                               Inhalation.
Benzyl alcohol......................             N/A             N/A    11,600,000,000  Soil Ingestion........             8,800  Groundwater Ingestion.
Methanol............................         <0.01 U             N/A    11,600,000,000  Soil Ingestion........             8,800  Groundwater Ingestion.
Phenol..............................        <0.310 U             N/A     6,950,000,000  Soil Ingestion........             5,280  Groundwater Ingestion.
Toluene.............................           0.035             N/A       369,000,000  Fish Ingestion........               460  Maximum Contaminant
                                                                                Level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maximum concentration documented in the Petitioner's Burnt Ridge delisting petition, Tables B-1, B-3, and B-4.
\2\ The Limiting Concentration is the lowest risk-based concentration developed in DRAS for the potential receptor pathways and specified target risk
  levels. See text in Section IV.C for the EPA's consideration of limiting concentrations exceeding 1,000,000 mg/kg for total concentrations or
  1,000,000 mg/L for TCLP concentrations.
\3\ The Limiting Pathway is the corresponding potential receptor pathway for the Limiting Concentration.
\4\ For detected constituents, the maximum analytical result was used. For non-detect constituents (annotated with a ``U''), the practical quantitation
  limit (PQL) was used.

                                          Table 3--Sampling Data and DRAS Modeling Results for Newaukum Prairie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Maximum observed                                          Modeling results
                                             concentration \1\       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     --------------------------------           Total concentrations                       TCLP concentration
       Constituent of concern                                        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Total \1\ (mg/    TCLP (mg/L)       Limiting                                  Limiting
                                            kg)             \4\         concentration    Limiting pathway \3\     concentration    Limiting pathway \3\
                                                                         (mg/kg) \2\                               (mg/L) \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barium..............................             N/A             N/A        11,000,000  Air Particulate                      498  Maximum Contaminant
                                                                                Inhalation.                               Level.
Cobalt..............................              89           0.184            49,100  Air Particulate                     2.92  Groundwater Ingestion.
                                                                                Inhalation.
Copper..............................             503             N/A         9,290,000  Fish Ingestion........               332  Maximum Contaminant
                                                                                Level.
Nickel..............................              30             N/A         1,840,000  Air Particulate                      184  Groundwater Ingestion.
                                                                                Inhalation.
Zinc................................           1,060             N/A        24,000,000  Fish Ingestion........             2,820  Groundwater Ingestion.
Benzaldehyde........................             N/A             N/A     1,210,000,000  Soil Ingestion........               809  Groundwater Ingestion.
Benzene.............................       <0.0039 U             N/A           955,000  Air Volatile                        1.08  Maximum Contaminant
                                                                                Inhalation.                               Level.
Benzoic Acid........................             N/A             N/A    42,500,000,000  Fish Ingestion........            32,400  Groundwater Ingestion.
Formic Acid.........................             N/A             N/A         4,830,000  Air Volatile                         519  Groundwater
                                                                                Inhalation.                               Inhalation.
Benzyl alcohol......................             N/A             N/A     6,060,000,000  Soil Ingestion........             4,040  Groundwater Ingestion.
Methanol............................         <0.01 U             N/A     6,060,000,000  Soil Ingestion........             4,040  Groundwater Ingestion.
Phenol..............................            0.63             N/A     3,640,000,000  Soil Ingestion........             2,430  Groundwater Ingestion.
Toluene.............................             150             N/A       189,000,000  Fish Ingestion........               211  Maximum Contaminant
                                                                                Level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maximum concentration documented in the Petitioner's Newaukum Prairie delisting petition, Tables B-1, B-3, and B-4.
\2\ The Limiting Concentration is the lowest risk-based concentration developed in DRAS for the potential receptor pathways and specified target risk
  levels. See text in Section IV.C for the EPA's consideration of limiting concentrations exceeding 1,000,000 mg/kg for total concentrations or
  1,000,000 mg/L for TCLP concentrations.
\3\ The Limiting Pathway is the corresponding potential receptor pathway for the Limiting Concentration.
\4\ For detected constituents, the maximum analytical result was used. For non-detect constituents (annotated with a ``U''), the practical quantitation
  limit (PQL) was used.

                                            Table 4--Sampling Data and DRAS Modeling Results for Big Hanaford
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Maximum observed                                          Modeling results
                                             concentration \1\       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     --------------------------------           Total concentrations                       TCLP concentration
       Constituent of concern                                        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Total \1\  (mg/   TCLP (mg/L)       Limiting                                  Limiting
                                            kg)             \4\         concentration    Limiting pathway \3\     concentration    Limiting pathway \3\
                                                                         (mg/kg) \2\                               (mg/L) \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barium..............................             N/A             N/A        20,100,000  Air Particulate                    1,030  Maximum Contaminant
                                                                                Inhalation.                               Level.
Cobalt..............................             165            1.10            89,900  Air Particulate                     5.92  Groundwater Ingestion.
                                                                                Inhalation.
Copper..............................             521             N/A        17,300,000  Fish Ingestion........               674  Maximum Contaminant
                                                                                Level.
Nickel..............................              42             N/A         3,370,000  Air Particulate                      384  Groundwater Ingestion.
                                                                                Inhalation.
Zinc................................           1,100             N/A        44,700,000  Fish Ingestion........             5,800  Groundwater Ingestion.
Benzaldehyde........................             N/A             N/A     2,210,000,000  Soil Ingestion........             1,660  Groundwater Ingestion.
Benzene.............................         0.00115             N/A         1,530,000  Air Volatile                        2.21  Maximum Contaminant
                                                                                Inhalation.                               Level.
Benzoic Acid........................             N/A             N/A    78,900,000,000  Fish Ingestion........            66,300  Groundwater Ingestion.
Formic Acid.........................             N/A             N/A         7,760,000  Air Volatile                       1,060  Groundwater
                                                                                Inhalation.                               Inhalation.
Benzyl alcohol......................             N/A             N/A    11,000,000,000  Soil Ingestion........             8,290  Groundwater Ingestion.
Methanol............................         <0.01 U             N/A    11,000,000,000  Soil Ingestion........             8,290  Groundwater Ingestion.
Phenol..............................              23             N/A     6,620,000,000  Soil Ingestion........             4,970  Groundwater Ingestion.
Toluene.............................             120             N/A       350,000,000  Fish Ingestion........               433  Maximum Contaminant
                                                                                Level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maximum concentration documented in the Petitioner's Big Hanaford delisting petition, Tables B-1 and B-3.
\2\ The Limiting Concentration is the lowest risk-based concentration developed in DRAS for the potential receptor pathways and specified target risk
  levels. See text in Section IV.C for the EPA's consideration of limiting concentrations exceeding 1,000,000 mg/kg for total concentrations or
  1,000,000 mg/L for TCLP concentrations.
\3\ The Limiting Pathway is the corresponding potential receptor pathway for the Limiting Concentration.
\4\ For detected constituents, the maximum analytical result was used. For non-detect constituents (annotated with a ``U''), the practical quantitation
  limit (PQL) was used.

F. What are EPA's proposed findings regarding the petitioned wastes?

    The maximum reported concentrations of the hazardous constituents
found in these wastes are presented in the tables above. The tables
also present the maximum allowable concentrations, above which the
waste is not excluded from the applicable hazardous waste listings.
    We therefore propose to conclude that the Petitioner's mixed IWBS/
treatment solids wastes are not a substantial or potential hazard to
human health and the environment when disposed of in a Subtitle D
landfill. Further, the data presented by the Petitioners in their
petitions support the EPA's proposed conclusion that the petitioned
waste does not exhibit any hazardous characteristic for which the waste
is listed, and that there are no other factors that would warrant
retaining the waste as hazardous. On this basis, we propose to grant
the Petitioner's petitions to delist these wastes. If this exclusion is
finalized, and subject to the conditions of the final delisting, the
Petitioners must dispose of these wastes in a Subtitle D landfill
permitted or licensed by a state and will remain obligated to verify
that the wastes continue to meet the allowable concentrations set forth
here. The Petitioners must also to demonstrate that the wastes do not
exhibit any hazardous characteristics pursuant to 40 CFR part 261
Subpart C. The Petitioners may make this demonstration based on the
existing characterization data provided in the delisting petition. As
noted in Section II.B, the data provided by the Petitioners demonstrate
that the candidate wastes do not exhibit a hazardous characteristic.

IV. Conditions for Exclusion

A. How will the Petitioners manage the waste if it is delisted?

    If the petitioned wastes are delisted as proposed, the Petitioners
must dispose of them in a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted,
licensed, or registered by a state to manage industrial waste.

B. What are the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the waste?

    Concentrations of the following constituents measured in the wastes
located at FMF's Burnt Ridge, Newaukum Prairie, and Big Hanaford
facilities, respectively, must not exceed the concentrations in Table
5.

                                   Table 5--Verification Constituents and Compliance Concentrations DRAS Model Output
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Burnt Ridge                   Newaukum Prarie                  Big Hanaford
                       Constituent                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Total (mg/kg)    TCLP (mg/l)    Total (mg/kg)    TCLP (mg/l)    Total (mg/kg)    TCLP (mg/l)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barium..................................................             N/A           1,090             N/A             498             N/A           1,030
Cobalt..................................................          94,400            6.28          49,100            2.92          89,900            5.92
Copper..................................................             N/A             716             N/A             332             N/A             674
Nickel..................................................             N/A             408             N/A             184             N/A             384
Zinc....................................................             N/A           6,170             N/A           2,820             N/A           5,800
Benzaldehyde............................................             N/A           1,760             N/A             809             N/A           1,660
Benzene.................................................             N/A            2.35             N/A            1.08             N/A            2.21
Benzoic Acid............................................             N/A          70,400             N/A          32,400             N/A          66,300
Formic Acid.............................................             N/A           1,130             N/A             519             N/A           1,060
Benzyl alcohol..........................................             N/A           8,800             N/A           4,040             N/A           8,290
Methanol................................................             N/A           8,800             N/A           4,040             N/A           8,290
Phenol..................................................             N/A           5,280             N/A           2,430             N/A           4,970
Toluene.................................................             N/A             460             N/A             211             N/A             433
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that in multiple instances the maximum allowable
total constituent concentrations provided by the DRAS model exceed 100%
of the waste--these DRAS results are an artifact of the risk
calculations that do not have physical meaning. In instances where DRAS
predicts a maximum constituent greater than 100 percent of the waste
(that is, greater than 1,000,000 mg/kg or mg/L, respectively, for total
and TCLP concentrations), the EPA is not proposing to require the
Petitioners to perform sampling and analysis for that constituent and
sampling type (total or TCLP). In these instances, the corresponding
entry in Table 5 above is ``N/A.''

C. How frequently must the Petitioners test the waste?

    The Petitioner's delisting petitions did not provide complete
sampling data for some constituents that EPA has retained as
constituents of concern. More specifically, characterization data for
barium, benzaldehyde, benzoic acid, formic acid, and benzyl alcohol,
which are retained as verification constituents, do not have any
existing characterization data. Therefore, the candidate wastes are
excluded only if the Petitioners analyze three representative composite
samples of the mixed IWBS/treatment solids wastes from each FMF
facility for these constituents prior to the start of closure
activities to demonstrate that the constituents of concern in the
petitioned waste do not exceed the concentrations of concern in Section
IV.C above. The Petitioners need only sample an extract of the wastes
from EPA SW-846 Method 1311 for purposes of comparison to the TCLP
standard in Table 5 and Condition 1 of the proposed amendments to 40
CFR part 261. If results of any composite sample do not reflect
compliance with delisting exclusion limits, the EPA may require the
Petitioners to conduct additional verification sampling to better
define the volume of waste with waste constituent concentrations
exceeding the delisting exclusion limits. The EPA believes that this
sampling rate will provide an appropriate level of certainty for
determining whether or not all delisted waste satisfy the delisting
criteria presented in Table 5 above. The Petitioners must use methods
with appropriate analytical sensitivity quality control procedures, as
documented in a written quality assurance project plan. EPA publication
SW-846 Method 1311 must be used for generation of the leachate extract
used in the testing of the subject waste. SW-846 Method 1311 is
incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11.
    A total analysis of the waste (accounting for any filterable
liquids and the dilution factor inherent in the TCLP method) may be
used to estimate the TCLP concentration as provided for in section 1.2
of Method 1311.

D. What data must the Petitioners submit?

    The Petitioners must submit the data obtained through verification
testing to U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Land, Chemicals and
Redevelopment, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 155, M/S 15-H04, Seattle,
Washington 98101 within 10 days after receiving the final results from
the laboratory. The Petitioners must make those records available for
inspection. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the
certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12). Provided that the data
demonstrate compliance with the verification standards in Condition 1
of the delisting rule, no further action is required of the
Petitioners.

E. What happens if the Petitioners fail to meet the conditions of the
exclusion?

    If the Petitioners violate the terms and conditions established in
the exclusion, the Agency may start procedures to withdraw the
exclusion. Additionally, the terms of the exclusion provide that
``[a]ny waste volume for which representative composite sampling does
not reflect full compliance with the exclusion criteria in Condition 1
must continue to be managed as hazardous.''
    If the verification testing of the waste does not demonstrate
compliance with the delisting concentrations described in section IV.C
above, or other data (including but not limited to leachate data or
groundwater monitoring data from the final land disposal facility)
relevant to the delisted waste indicates that any constituent is at a
concentration in waste above specified delisting verification
concentrations in Table 5, the Petitioners must notify the Agency
within 10 days, or such later date as the EPA may agree to in writing,
after receiving the final verification testing results from the
laboratory or of first possessing or being made aware of other relevant
data. The EPA may

require the Petitioners to conduct additional verification sampling to
better define the particular volume of wastes within the affected unit
that does not fully satisfy delisting criteria. For any volume of
wastes for which the corresponding representative sample(s) do not
reflect full compliance with delisting exclusion levels, the exclusion
by its terms does not apply, and the waste must be managed as
hazardous.
    The EPA has the authority under RCRA and the Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et seq. to reopen a delisting
decision if we receive new information indicating that the conditions
of this exclusion have been violated or are otherwise not being met.

F. What must the Petitioners do if the process changes?

    Since the wastes that are the subject of this proposed de-listing
already exist and are not expected to change as part of closure process
for each of the units where the wastes are currently stored, there are
no proposed requirements addressing process changes.

V. When would the EPA finalize the proposed delisting exclusion?

    HSWA specifically requires the EPA to provide notice and an
opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final exclusion.
Thus, EPA will not make a final decision or grant an exclusion until it
has addressed all timely public comments on today's proposal, including
any at public hearings. Upon receipt and consideration of all comments,
EPA will publish its final determination as a final rule. Since this
rule would reduce the existing requirements for persons generating
hazardous wastes, the regulated community does not need a six-month
period to come into compliance in accordance with Sec.  3010 of RCRA as
amended by HSWA.

VI. How would this action affect the states?

    Because the EPA is proposing to issue this exclusion under the
federal RCRA delisting regulations, only states subject to federal RCRA
delisting provisions will be affected. This exclusion may not be
effective in states which have received authorization from the EPA to
make their own delisting decisions.
    RCRA allows states to impose more stringent regulatory requirements
than RCRA's under Sec.  3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements
may include a provision that prohibits a federally issued exclusion
from taking effect in the state. We urge petitioners to contact the
state regulatory authority to establish the status of their wastes
under the state law.
    The EPA has also authorized some states to administer a delisting
program in place of the federal program, that is, to make state
delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those
states. If the Petitioners manage the wastes in any state with
delisting authorization, the Petitioners must obtain delisting
authorization or other determination from the receiving state before it
can manage the waste as nonhazardous in that state.
    While Washington State has received final authorization to
implement most of its dangerous waste program regulations in lieu of
the federal program, including the listing and identification of U019
and U220 wastes (See 51 Federal Register 3782), it has not been
authorized to implement its delisting regulations program in lieu of
the federal program. The EPA notes that Washington State has provisions
in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-303-910(3) similar to
the federal provisions upon which this delisting is based. These
provisions are in effect as a matter of state law. Thus, the
Petitioners must seek de-listing approval from Washington State in
addition to this proposed delisting for this delisting to be effective
as a matter of state law in Washington. In the absence of approval from
Washington, the wastes proposed for de-listing by EPA in this action
will continue to be regulated as ``dangerous waste'' under state law.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This proposed action is exempt from review by the Office of
Management and Budget because it is a rule of particular applicability,
not general applicability. The proposed action approves a delisting
petition under RCRA for the petitioned waste at a particular facility.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This proposed action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because actions such as approval of delisting petitions under
RCRA are exempted under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it only applies to a particular facility.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a
particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility
provision of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed action does not contain any unfunded mandate as
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and
does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action
imposes no new enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications as specified
in Executive Order 13175. This proposed action applies only to a
particular facility on non-tribal land. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This proposed action's health and
risk assessments using the Agency's Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS), which considers health and safety risks to children, are
described in section III.E above. The technical support document and
the user's guide for DRAS are included in the docket.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This proposed action does not involve technical standards as
described by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this proposed action does not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or
indigenous peoples. The EPA has determined that this proposed action
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, as described in section
III.E above, 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, the 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.

L. Congressional Review Act

    This proposed action is exempt from the Congressional Review Act (5
U.S.C. 801 et seq.) because it is a rule of particular applicability.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

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

    Dated: October 11, 2019.
Timothy B. Hamlin,
Director, Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 261 as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
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.

0
2. Amend Table 1 of Appendix IX to Part 261 by adding the following
waste stream entry ``Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC and Fire Mountain
Farms, Inc'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:

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

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

                                                  * * * * * * *
Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC and Fire  Lewis County,            Mixtures of hazardous wastewater treatment
 Mountain Farms, Inc.                   Washington.              sludges, U019 (benzene) and U220 (toluene) and
                                                                 other non-hazardous solid wastes to be removed
                                                                 by Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC and Fire
                                                                 Mountain Farms, Inc (Petitioners) pursuant to
                                                                 closure plans approved by the Washington State
                                                                 Department of Ecology and currently in storage
                                                                 in Fire Mountain Farm's Burnt Ridge, Newaukum
                                                                 Prarie and Big Hanford facilities in Lewis
                                                                 County, Washington. The maximum amount of
                                                                 wastes that may be managed pursuant to this
                                                                 exclusion is 4,700 cubic yards at the Burnt
                                                                 Ridge facility, 10,400 cubic yards at the
                                                                 Newaukum Prairie facility, and 5,000 cubic
                                                                 yards at the Big Hanaford facility, present at
                                                                 each facility as of the effective date of this
                                                                 exclusion, subject to the conditions below.
                                                                 Wastes managed under this exclusion must be
                                                                 disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is
                                                                 licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized by
                                                                 a state to accept the delisted mixed material.
                                                                 The exclusion becomes effective as of [[the
                                                                 date of final publication].].
                                                                1. Delisting Levels: The constituent
                                                                 concentrations in a representative sample of
                                                                 the waste must not exceed the following levels.
                                                                 For each constituent, the delisting
                                                                 verification level is provided for Burnt Ridge,
                                                                 Newaukum Prarie and Big Hanaford, respectively.
                                                                 Total concentrations (mg/kg): Cobalt--94,400,
                                                                 49,100, 89,900; TCLP Concentrations (mg/l in
                                                                 the waste extract): Barium--1,090, 498, 1,030;
                                                                 Cobalt--6.28, 2.92, 5.92; Copper--716, 332,
                                                                 674; Nickel--408, 184, 384; Zinc--6,170, 2,820,
                                                                 5,800; Benzaldehyde--1,760, 809, 1,660;
                                                                 Benzene--2.35, 1.08, 2.21; Benzoic Acid--
                                                                 70,400, 32,400, 66,300; Formic Acid--1,130,
                                                                 519, 1,060; Benzyl Alcohol--8,800, 4,040,
                                                                 8,290; Methanol--8,800, 4,040, 8,290; Phenol--
                                                                 5,280, 2,430, 4,970; Toluene--460, 211, 433.

                                                                2. Verification Testing: To verify that the
                                                                 waste does not exceed the delisting
                                                                 concentrations specified in Condition 1, the
                                                                 Petitioners must collect and analyze an extract
                                                                 using EPA SW-846 Method 1311 (TCLP extraction)
                                                                 from three representative composite samples for
                                                                 barium, benzaldehyde, benzoic acid, formic
                                                                 acid, and benzyl alcohol of the mixed IWBS/
                                                                 treatment solids wastes from each FMF facility
                                                                 prior to the start of closure activities to
                                                                 demonstrate that the constituents of concern in
                                                                 the petitioned waste do not exceed the
                                                                 concentrations of concern in Condition 1. If
                                                                 results from analysis of any composite sample
                                                                 do not reflect compliance with delisting
                                                                 exclusion limits, the EPA may require the
                                                                 Petitioners to conduct additional verification
                                                                 sampling to better define the volume of waste
                                                                 with waste constituent concentrations exceeding
                                                                 the delisting exclusion limits. The Petitioners
                                                                 must conduct all verification sampling
                                                                 according to a written sampling plan and
                                                                 associated quality assurance project plan which
                                                                 is approved in advance by the EPA that ensures
                                                                 analytical data are suitable for their intended
                                                                 use. Sampling data must be submitted to the EPA
                                                                 no later than 10 days after receiving the final
                                                                 results from the laboratory, or such later date
                                                                 as the EPA may agree to in writing. Any waste
                                                                 volume for which representative composite
                                                                 sampling does not reflect full compliance with
                                                                 the exclusion criteria in Condition 1 must
                                                                 continue to be managed as hazardous. The
                                                                 Petitioners must also submit to EPA a
                                                                 certification that all wastes satisfying the
                                                                 delisting concentrations in Condition 1 have
                                                                 been disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which
                                                                 is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized
                                                                 by a state to accept the delisted mixed
                                                                 material of wastewater treatment sludge, and
                                                                 the quantity of waste disposed from each
                                                                 facility. This submission must be submitted to
                                                                 EPA within 60 days of completion of closure
                                                                 according to the approved closure plan.
                                                                3. Data Submittals: The Petitioners must submit
                                                                 the data obtained through verification testing
                                                                 and as required by other conditions of this
                                                                 rule, to the Director, Land, Chemical, &
                                                                 Redevelopment Division, U.S. EPA Region 10,
                                                                 1200 6th Avenue Suite 155, M/S 15-H04, Seattle,
                                                                 Washington, 98070 or his or her equivalent.
                                                                 Electronic submission via electronic mail,
                                                                 physical electronic media (e.g., USB flash
                                                                 drive), or an electronic file transfer system
                                                                 is acceptable. The Petitioners must compile,
                                                                 summarize, and maintain for a minimum of five
                                                                 years, records of analytical data and waste
                                                                 disposal required by this rule. The Petitioners
                                                                 must make these records available for
                                                                 inspection. All data must be accompanied by a
                                                                 signed copy of the certification statement in
                                                                 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12). If the Petitioners fail
                                                                 to submit the required data within the
                                                                 specified time or maintain the required records
                                                                 for the specified time, the EPA may, at its
                                                                 discretion, consider such failure a sufficient
                                                                 basis to reopen the exclusion as described in
                                                                 Condition 4.
                                                                4. Reopener Language: (A) If, any time after
                                                                 disposal of the delisted waste, the Petitioners
                                                                 possess or are otherwise made aware of any
                                                                 data, including but not limited to leachate
                                                                 data or groundwater monitoring data from the
                                                                 final land disposal facility, relevant to the
                                                                 delisted waste indicating that any constituent
                                                                 is at a higher than the specified delisting
                                                                 concentration, then the Petitioners must report
                                                                 such data, in writing, to the Director, Land,
                                                                 Chemical, & Redevelopment Division, EPA Region
                                                                 10 at the address above, or his or her
                                                                 equivalent, within 10 days of first possessing
                                                                 or being made aware of those data.
                                                                (B) Based on the information described in
                                                                 Condition 4(A) and any other information
                                                                 received from any source, the EPA will make a
                                                                 preliminary determination as to whether the
                                                                 reported information requires Agency action to
                                                                 protect human health or the environment.
                                                                 Further action may include suspending, or
                                                                 revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate
                                                                 response necessary to protect human health and
                                                                 the environment.
                                                                (C) If the EPA determines that the reported
                                                                 information does require Agency action, the EPA
                                                                 will notify the Petitioners in writing of the
                                                                 actions it believes are necessary to protect
                                                                 human health and the environment. The notice
                                                                 shall include a statement of the proposed
                                                                 action and a statement providing the
                                                                 Petitioners with an opportunity to present
                                                                 information as to why the proposed Agency
                                                                 action is not necessary or to suggest an
                                                                 alternative action. The Petitioners shall have
                                                                 30 days from the date of the EPA's notice to
                                                                 present the information.
                                                                (D) If after 30 days the Petitioners present no
                                                                 further information or after a review of any
                                                                 submitted information, the EPA will issue a
                                                                 final written determination describing the
                                                                 Agency actions that are necessary to protect
                                                                 human health or the environment. Any required
                                                                 action described in the EPA's determination
                                                                 shall become effective immediately unless the
                                                                 EPA provides otherwise.

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

[FR Doc. 2019-23830 Filed 11-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 70 (Friday, April 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20193-20194]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08092]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-673-004; ER12-672-004; ER10-1908-007; ER10-
1909-007; ER10-1910-007; ER10-1911-007; ER10-1533-008; ER10-2374-006;
ER12-674-005; ER12-670-005.
    Applicants: Brea Generation LLC, Brea Power II, LLC, Duquesne
Conemaugh LLC, Duquesne Keystone LLC, Duquesne Light Company, Duquesne
Power, LLC, Macquarie Energy LLC, Puget Sound Energy, Inc., Rhode
Island Engine Genco, LLC, Rhode Island LFG Genco, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Brea
Generation LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140402-5220.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1857-000; EL14-3-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Response to request for additional information
regarding delivered price test analysis filed on November 7, 2013 of
Idaho Power Company.
    Filed Date: 4/3/14.
    Accession Number: 20140403-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1173-002.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Defer Effective date and proceeding with NCEMC NITSA
to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 4/3/14.
    Accession Number: 20140403-5100.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1215-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Defer Effective date and proceeding SCPSA and CEPCI
NITSA to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 4/3/14.
    Accession Number: 20140403-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1281-001.
    Applicants: Powerex Corp.
    Description: Errata to Powerex FERC Rate Schedule No. 1 to be
effective 4/7/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/3/14.
    Accession Number: 20140403-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1412-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Alliant
Energy Corporate Services, Inc.
    Description: Amendment to March 4, 2014 Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. tariff filing [IPL-RPGI DAF Agreement] of
Interstate Power and Light Company.
    Filed Date: 4/3/14.
    Accession Number: 20140403-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1464-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Defer Effective date and proceeding EUEMC NITSA to be
effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 4/3/14.
    Accession Number: 20140403-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1648-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: 2014-4-2--SPS-GSEC-Elk-E&P-667-0.1.0-NOC to be
effective 4/3/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140402-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1649-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Filing under the California Independent System
Operator Corporation Tariff Section <IP_ADDRESS>, Minimum Bid Price for
Energy Bids of Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Filed Date: 4/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140402-5204.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1650-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Notice of cancellation of three non-conforming service
agreements of Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Filed Date: 4/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140402-5208.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1651-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Hampshire.
    Description: Rate Schedule No. 104 Wholesale Distribution Service
for Central Maine Power Co. to be effective 6/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/3/14.
    Accession Number: 20140403-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1652-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: SGIA and Distribution Service Agreement with Bowerman
Power LFG, LLC to be effective 4/4/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/3/14.
    Accession Number: 20140403-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1653-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Integrated Marketplace Filing to be effective 3/1/
2014.
    Filed Date: 4/3/14.
    Accession Number: 20140403-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 3, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08092 Filed 4-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P