Document Vj27orxmmqk7y8wzpNaXoNpx8

(conoco) Interoffice Communication To Distribution From D. A. Kuhn - Houston Date 15 January 1981 Subject Obtaining A Special Waste Generator Number EPA has announced a special procedure for timely issuance of provisional, emergency waste generator identification numbers (45 FR 85022, 12-24-80). These numbers may be obtained imme diately through designated phone numbers at EPA Regional offices to handle special circumstances. For example, several weeks ago the Production Department wished to clean some equipment prior to shipment overseas. It was located at the yard of an overseas packing company where Conoco (the generator) had, of course, no identification number. Without one no waste transporter would accept the material to carry it to a disposal site. The problem was solved by deferring the cleaning to the destination. A call to the Region VI number confirmed that the new procedure was established to handle such circumstances. EPA will follow up by sending Form 8700-12 but the number will be given over the phone to prevent delay. sbr Oo SS9 Page 2 Distribution: Conoco Environmental Council Members Chemicals: Joe Ledvina - Houston Jim Gibson - Baltimore Veldon Messick - Aberdeen Jack Neeld - Lake Charles Ed Taylor - Hammond Bill Revelt - Newark Ken Freshour - Oklahoma City Paul Warner - Oklahoma City Greg Hoenes - Lake Charles Gary Foshee - Lake Charles K. M. Resh - Baltimore Philip Ward - Lake Charles Concarb: F. P. Miller - Houston CPL: ? Koenig - Houston Ed Keough - Houston Legal: Don Linker - Houston Jim Doyle - Houston NGP: Don Derby - Houston Laura Daniel - Houston PED: Ron Gantz - Ponca City Lew Cresswell - Ponca City Bob Schlessman - Ponca City Refining: R. S. Hodgson - Paramount John Gauen - Billings Dennis Creamer - Denver Jim Heaton - Paramount John Nash - Lake Charles Richard Thorstenberg - Ponca City J. W, Dallman - Wrenshall Research Services: Dick Tillman - Ponca City Bob Huddleston - Ponca City Technical Services: Mike Alden - Ponca City Transportation: Richard Fitzgerald - Houston Environmental Conservation: Randy Buttram Richard Fuller CCR 000040560 iry Ann Chance To Distribution For your information. Date 1-19-81 mt Enc: FR 1/07/81 - "Mississippi's Application for Phase I Interim Authorization of a State Hazardous Waste Management Program" (approved) FR 12/31/80 - "Storage Requirements Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste, Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities, Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities and EPA Administered Permit Program." These amendments clarify when a transporter handling shipments of a hazardous waste is required to obtain a storage facility permit. FR 12/31/80 - "Hazardous Waste Management System; Standards for Generators of Hazardous Waste, and Standards for Owners and Operators nr Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities and Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities." This regulation amends the regulation to provide that owners and operators of TSD facilities must comply with Part 262 whenever a shipment of hazardous waste is initiated at their facility. FR 12/31/80 - "Transportation of Hazardous Waste be Rail" FR 12/31/80 - "Hazardous Waste Management System: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste." CCR 000040561 Distribution Page 2 January 19, 1981 EPA temporarily excluded solid wastes generated at several particular generating facilities from ha_ .dous waste status. FR 1/05/81 - "Maryland Application for Interim Authorization, Phase I, Hazardous Waste Management Program" CCR 000040562 Wednesday December 31, 1980 Part XX Environmental Protection Agency Hazardous Waste Management System: Storage by Transporters; Shipments From Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facilities; Transportation by Rail CCR 0000^056 JG966 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 252 / Wednesday, December 31, 1980 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 122,263,264, and 265 [SW FRL 1715-5J Hazardous Waste Management System&torage Requirements Appllcabl to Transporters of Hazard us Waste, Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities, Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities and EPA Administered Permit Programs? The Hazardous Waste Permit Program agency: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTI n: Interim final amendments and request for comments. SUMMARY; In February and May of 1980, EPA promulgated final regulations applicable to transporters of hazardous waste and to owners and operators of hazardous waste storage facilities. 45 FR 12722 (February 26,1980) and 45 FR 33066 (May 19,1980). These .iinendments supplement those ,<; ulations Dy clarifying when a i ar. rtcr Kmdlit g shipments of baza.a- ifvt. -v aired to obtain a 'torage facility permit. Under these amendments a transporter may hold a manifested shipment of hazardous waste for up to ten days without a RCRA permit and without complying with the standards applicable to hazardous waste storage facilities. If the waste is held for more than ten days, an RCRA permit is required, and the transporter must comply with the applicable storage standards and permit requirements. DATES: Effective date; December 31, 1980. Comment date: EPA Will accept public comments on this interim final rule until March 2,1981. ADDRESS: Comments on the amendment should be sent to the J?ocket Clerk (Docket 3003--Transportation Storage], Office of Solid Waste (WH-563), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,, Washington, DC 20460. F R FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT For general information concerning these regulations, contact Rolf P. Hill, or Carolyn Barley, (202) 755-9150, Office of olid Waste (WH-563). U.S. . iivr.jiion!i.i Promotion Agency, . nr X. >< ' NT ArtY INFORMATION: I. Authority This Interim final regulation is issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 3002, 3003, 3004, and 3005, of Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6923, 6924, 6925. II. Background Information A. Introduction In regulate oromulgated in February of 1980, EPA established standards applicable to generators and transporters of hazardous waste. 45 FR 12742 (February 26,1980). These standards created, among other things, a manifest system which was designed to track hazardous wastes from their generation through their uitim'ate disposition. In addition, for the transportation of hazardous waste, EPA adopted many of the requirements of the Department of Transportation (DOT) under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act designed to ensure the propef and safe transportation of hazardous materials. In May of 1980, DOT amended its regulations to include hazardous wastes in its regulatory program. 45 FR 34560 (May 22,1980). In May of 1980, EPA promulgated regulations that, among other things, set standards and permit requirements applicable to owners and operators of hazardous waste management facilities. 40 CFR Parts 284, 265 and 122.45 FR 33220 (May 19,1980). These regulations prescribe general operating practices for all hazardous waste management facilities as well as set specific requirements for the storage of hazardous waste. All hazardous waste management facilities must have an RCRA permit to operate or, prior to the issuance of a permit, be in "interim status". Many transporters own or operate transfer facilities (sometimes called "break-bulk" facilities) as part oftheir transportation activities. At these facilities, for example, shipments may be consolidated into larger units or shipments may be transferred to different vehicles for redirecting or re routing. Shipments generally are held at these facilities for short periods of time. The length of time may vary due to such factors as scheduling and weather, but because these facilities are intended to facilitate transportation activities, rather than storage, the time is typically as short as practicable. In developing the hazardous waste regulations EPA recognized that in the normal course of transportation hazardous waste might be held for short periods of time in vehicles (e.g. in trucks parked at the transporter's terminal overnight or over a weekend) or at transfer facilities. The Agency did not. however, dearly state that the holding of hazardous waste by a transporter incidental to transportation would not require a RCRA storage permit and compliance with the standards applicable to storage of hazardous waste. A literal application of the regulations, however, might require all transporters who hold waste during transportation or who own or operate transfer facilities to obtain RCRA permits. The transportation industry has asked EPA whether the Agency intended tr require transporters to file permit appications and comply with the substantive standards for storage. B, Transfer Facility Requirements For the reasons set forth below, EPA believes that transporters who hold hazardous wastes for a short period of time in the course of transportation should not be considered to be storing hazardous wastes and should not be required to obtain a RCRA permit or interim status and comply with the standards of Parts 264 or 265. For the amendments published today, EPA allows transporters to hold wastes in the course of transportation for up to 10 days if the waste is accompanied by a manifest and remains in containers which meet the Department of Transportation (DOT) packaging requirements. These amendments relieve transporters who own or operate a transfer facility of the necessity of obtaining a RCRA permit and of complying with the substantive requirements for storage for the holding of wastes which is incidental to normal transportation practices. The term transfer facility, as used in this amendment, refers to transportation terminals (including vehicle parking areas, loading docks and other similar areas) break-bulk facilities or any other facility commonly used by transporters to temporarily hold shipments of hazardous waste during transportation. The transportation system established by EPA's regulations should achieve adequate protection of human health and the environment. Transporters have a natural incentive to move shipments quickly and efficiently; their business, in most cases, is the movement of hazardous wastes rather than the storage of such waste. In addition, the manifest system requires that the generator receive a copy of the manifest, signed and dated by the designated facility within 35 days. To avoid the necessity of locating shipments of hazardous waste and filing Exception Reports with EPA, generators will desire CCR 000040564 * Federal Register / Vol, 45, No. 252 / Wednesday, December 31. 1980 / Rules and Regulations 86967 prompt transportation and delivery of hazardous waste shipments. These factors, working together, should operate to ensure that wastes will not be held in storage for lengthy periods by transporters. In addition, the amended regulations Set a ten day period for in-transit holding of hazardous waste. This will of course provide a further incentive for transporters to quickly move shipments of hazardous waste. EPA chose a ten day period in order to allow short term holding of waste for transfer and to account for such things as scheduling problems, weather delays, temporary closing and other factors which might cause unforseen delays. The Agency also received information from the transportation industry indicating that shipments of hazardous waste normally take no longer than fifteen days (including both the actual transportation and the temporary holding of the shipment.) Therefore, providing ten days for in-transit storage of waste will cover almost all transportation related holding activities. The amendments provide that the hazardous wastes being held at transfer facilities must be in containers (including tank cars and cargo tanks) which meet DOT specifications for packaging under 49 CFR 173,178 and 179. This provision should ensure that the hazardous waste remains properly packaged during this phase of transportation. Although the Agency believes that this requirement should provide adequate protection of human health and the environment during the short period that hazardous wastes are held at a transfer facility, we solicit comments on whether additional requirements should be imposed, such as contingency plans, personnel training, and inspections. Comments are specifically requested on which, if any, of the Part 285 requirements should be placed on transporters who hold shipments of hazardous waste for ten days or less. II is important to note that the provisions of Subpart C of Part 283, regarding transporter responsibilities in the event of a discharge, apply to transfer facilities. Specifically, a transporter is required to clean up any hazardous waste discharge and to report the discharge in accordance with the provisions of Department of Transportation's Regulations (49 CFR Part 171). The Agency believes that adequate protection of human health and the environment can be achieved by limiting the length of in-transit holding of wastes and by requiring the use of DOT containers. These simple requirements do not have to be implemented through the Issuance of RCRA permits and compliance with all the requirements for hazardous waste storage facilities, EPA further believes that the administrative burdens on both the regulated community and EPA are substantially reduced without detriment to the protection of human health and the environment. In addition, by allowing limited in transit storage without a RCRA permit or interim status, these amendments better serve the important purposes of the manifest system by enabling and requiring the generator to designate the ultimate treatment, storage or disposal facility, rather than b transporter transfer facility and by ensuring the prompt delivery of hazardous waste shipments to such facilities. If hazardous wastes had to be manifested to a permitted or interim status transfer facility where the wastes were held temporarily, then the generator would be unintentionally relieved of the important responsibility of designating and assuring delivery to the ultimate treatment, storage or disposal facility. The ten day exemption only applies when a transporter is holding the manifested shipment of hazardous waBte in containers which meet applicable Department of Transportation regulations for packaging. The Agency decided to exclude the holding of hazardous waste in stationary storage tanks from these amendments because the intent of this action is to accommodate those normal and routine transfer activities raised by the transportation industry. Specifically, the industry was concerned about RCRA's application to transport vehicles parked at transfer facilities and to containers which, in the course of being transferred from one vehicle to another, were held on a loading dock or other similar facility for a short period of time. The Agency specifically requests comments on whether the ten day exemption should be expanded to include temporary storage in tanka meeting the requirements of Subpart J of 40 CFR Part 285 (except 5 205.193). These amendments do not affect the manifest system established in the February and May regulations. The generator, each transporter and the designated facility are still required to sign the manifest. The Agency is, however, considering requiring additional entries on the manifest. Specifically, comments are requested on whether signatures and dates should appear on the manifest indicating when the shipment entered and left the transfer facility. These amendments do not place any new requirements on transporters re packaging waste from one container to another (e.g., consolidation of wastes from smaller to larger containers) or on transporters who mix hazardous wastes at transfer facilities. The Agency solicits comments on whether regulatory controls over the consolidation of shipments and mixing of hazardous waste by transporters are warranted. Specifically, should controls similar to those in Part 265 regarding the mixing of incompatible waste be placed on transporters? IV. Interim Final Regulations and Effective Date A. Interim Final Regulations EPA has determined under Section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, that there is good cause for promulgating these amendments without prior notice and comment. Without these amendments, transporters who own or operate transfer facilities, under a literal application of the regulations, could continue to operate such facilities on or after November 19,1980 only if they had a permit or interim status and complied with the epplicable requirements of Parts 284 or 205. We believe that it is essential to correct this and to clearly set forth the obligations of transporters. B, Effective Date Section 3030(b) of RCRA provides that EPA's hazardous waste regulations and revisions thereto take effect six months after promulgation, The purpose of this requirement is to allow persons handling hazardous waste sufficient lead time to prepare and to comply with major new regulatory requirements. For the amendments promulgated today, however, the Agency believes that an effective date six months after promulgation would cause substantial and unnecessary disruption in the impiementation of the regulations and would not be in the public interest. Since the amendments reduce, rather than increase, the existing requirements for transporters, there ts no basis for allowing a lengthy period of time for transporters to prepare for compliance. Therefore, the regulatory provisions that these amendments modify take effect immediately. V. Environmental, Economic and Regulatory Impacts These amendments reduce the economic, reporting and record-keeping impacts on transporters who own or operate transfer facilities by virtue of eliminating, in most cases, the CCR 00004-0565 86968 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 252 / Wednesday, December 31, i960 / Rules and Regulations requirement for applying for an individual RCRA permit and complying with the substantive requirements of Parts 264 or 265. The proposed amendments will also reduce the resource demands on the Agency by reducing the number of individual RCRA permits that otherwise would have to be issued. The Agency believes that these savings can be achieved without significantly reducing the protection of human health and environment. VI. Request for Comment The Agency invites comments on all aspects of these amendments and on all of the issues discussed in this preamble, EPA recognizes that a wide variety of situations exist and is anxious to make its regulations as reasonable and workable as possible. All comments should be addressed to the Docket Clerk (see address above) and should contain specific documentation which supports the comment. Dated; December 22,1980, Douglas M. Costle, Administrator. Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: F \RT -HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SvSTFM: GENERAL 1. Aud dm tunowuij definition to 200.10. 260,10 [Amended] ***** "Transfer facility" means any transportation related facility including loading docks, parking areas, storage ureas and other similar areas where shipments of hazardous waste are held during the normal course of transportation. PART 263--STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 263.10 [Amended] 2. Remove the note following 263.10(c)(2) 3. Add the following section to Subpart A; 263.12 Transfer facility requirements. A transporter who stores manifested shipments of hazardous waste in containers meeting the requirements of 262.30 at a transfer facility for a period ui tun dsvs or less is not subject to ;v uation under Parts 122, 264, and 285 - ri-ip- t-" with respect to the d hose wastes. Part 264--STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES 4. Add the following subparagraph to 264.1(g) 264.1 [Amended] ***** (g) * * * (6) A transporter storing manifested shipments ' ' a zardous waste in containers meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 5 262.30 at a transfer facility for a period of ten days or less, PART 265--INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES 5. Add the following subparagraph to 265.1(c) 265.1 [Amended] ***** (c) * * * (10) A transporter storing manifested shipments of hazardous waste in containers meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 262.30 at a transfer facility for a period of ten days or less. PART 122--EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM; THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM; AND THE UNDERGROUND CONTROL PROGRAM o. ndd the following definition to 122.3 122.3 [Amended] ***** "Transfer facility" means any transportation related facility including loading docks, parking areas, storage areas and other similar areas where shipments of hazardous waste are held during the normal course of transportation. 7. Add the following subparagraph to 122.21(d)(2) 122.21 [Amended] ***** (d)* * * (2) * * * (vi) Transporters storing manifested shipments of hazardous waste in containers meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 262.30 at a transferfadiiiy for a period of ten days or less. |FR Doc. 80-4061? Filed 1i-30-80( 8.43 am) BILLING CODE 83S0-38-M 40 CFR Parts 262,264 and 265 ISW FRL 171S-S] Hazardous Waste Management System; Standards for Generators f Hazardous Waste, and Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities and Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. action: Interim final rule and request for comments. Summary: This regulation amends 262.10, 264.71 and 205.71 to provide that owners or operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities must comply with the requirements of Part 262 whenever a shipment of hazardous waste is initiated at their facilities. The effect of this provision is to require owners and operators to comply with the standards applicable to generators including the preparation of manifests, all pre transport requirements and the recordkeeping and report provisions of Part 262. DATES: Effective Date: December 31, 19B0. Comment Date: The Agency will accept comments on this interim final rule until March 2,1981. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Docket Clerk (Docket No. 3002Shipments from Permitted Facilities), Office of Solid Waste (WH-563). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning these regulations, contact Rolf P. Hill, (202) 755-9150. Office of Solid Waste (WH563), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Authority This interim final rule is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3002, 3003, and 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA), 42 USC 6912(a), 6923, 6924. II. Background Section 3004 of RCRA requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. EPA promulgated the initial set of theBe standards on May 19,1980 45 FR 33220. CCR 000040566 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 252 / Wednesday, December 31, I960 / Rules and Regulations 66869 These regualtions, which are set forth in comments indicated that persons, 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265. establish thought that such shipments would not operating standards and practices for require a manifest. However, in the the management of hazardotis'wastes in preamble to the May 19 Part 261 treatment, storage and disposal regulations, under the heading "When facilities. does a hazardous waste cease to be a In addition, EPA has promulgated hazardous waste?", EPA stated, "as a regulations establishing standards practical matter,. , . facilities which applicable to generators of hazardous store, dispose of, or treat hazardous waste. 40 CFR Part 262, 45 FR 12722 waste must be considered hazardous (February 26,1980) and 45 FR 53140 waste management facilities for as long (May 19,1980). These regulations, as they continue to contain hazardous require generators, among other things, waste, and . , . any waste removed from to determine whether their waste is such facilities, , . . must be managed hazardous; initiate a manifest; properly as a hazardous waste." (emphasis label, package, mark and placard added) 45 FR 33096 (May 19.1980). shipments of hazardous waste; and to Further, in comments included in the comply with certain recordkeeping and closure requirements of various sections reporting requirements. of Part 285 (e.g. s 285.197), the Agency Owners and operators of hazardous stated that shipments from facilities at waste management facilities may closure as well as throughout the generate hazardous waste (e.g., residues operating period must be managed in created by treatment processes). With accordance with Parts 282 and 263. Thus respect to the hazardous waste that it is evident that EPA intended owners these persons generate, they, like other and operators of these facilities to generators, must comply with the comply with the Part 262 standards applicable provisions of Part 262, when shipping hazardous wastes from Accordingly, if owners and operators of their facilities. EPA failed, however, to these facilities transport hazardous specify that intent in the regulations. waste off-site that they have generated, they must undertake certain activities, including initiating the manifest, and properly labeling and packaging the III. Requirements on Shipments of Hazardous Waste From Facilities This amendment requires owners and waste. Owners and operators of hazardous operators of hazardous waste management facilities to comply with waste management facilities may also the Part 262 generator standards when ship off-site hazardous waste which they initiate a shipment of hazardous' they did not generate. The most obvious waste which they have not'"generated" example is the removal of hazardous from their facilities, (these owners and waste from a storage facility. The owner operators, like other generators of or operator of a storage facility does not hazardous waste, must comply with all "generate" a waste simply by removing the Part 262 standards'for hazardous it from storage. Removing hazardous wastes they in fact generate). The owner waste from storage for shipment offsite, or operator is required to determine if however, means that the waste will be the waste is hazardous (i 2B2;11). if the transported and subsequently handled owner or operator is removing from elsewhere. storage hazardous waste which was Other examples are off-site originally manifested by the generator, transportation of (1) hazardous waste he may rely on the information on the removed from a disposal facility, (2) manifest to make the determination wholly or partially treated hazardous pursuant to S 262.11(c)(2). He is required waste which has not been "delisted" to prepare a manifest to accompany the under 5 261.3(d) and (3) solid waste shipment, pursuant to Subpart B of Part generated from the treatment, storage or 262. He must package, label, mark, and disposal of hazardous waste [see placard the waste in accordance with 261.3(c)(2)] which has not been the applicable EPA and Department of "delisted" under 201.3(d). Although, In Transportation regulations, as provided these situations, the owner or operator in Subpart C of Part 262; He must also has not, in fact, "generated" the comply with the Subpart D hazardous waste, EPA believes he recordkeeping and reporting should assume the responsibilities of a requirements and the special conditions generator to assure that the off-site applicable to international shipments shipments of these wastes are properly (5 262.50). managed. The owner or operator is not required Members of the regulated community to obtain a new EPA identification have requested that EPA clarify what number when manifesting shipments of regulations apply when a facility hazardous waste. The number already initiates a shipment of hazardous waste assigned to the owner or operator of the which it did not generate. Some facility should be UBed. The provisions of { 262.34 do not apply, however, to hazardous wastes which the owner or operator did not generate, that is, hazardous wastes which he received are not eligible for the accumulation time provisions. Those provisions relate to accumulation of waste immediately after it has been generated at the site of generation in order to allow the generator an opportunity to accumulate sufficient quantities of waste prior to treatment, storage or disposal and to make the necessary arrangements for the waste's disposition. Today's amendment applies when the owner or operator initiates a shipment of hazardous waste. Some facilities which have storage permits may handle, in the course of transportation, hazardous waste shipments which are accompanied by a manifest designating another facility for treatment, storage or disposal of the waste. For example, a transfer facility operated by a transporter may engage in longterm storage of hazardous waste and may aUo hold manifested waste for short periods related to the transportation of that waste. Another amendment to the hazardous waste regulations states that the holding of manifested wastes for short periods in the course of transportation does not constitute storage requiring a RCRA permit or Interim status or compliance with the 264/265 standards. The amendment discussed in this preamble applies to the removal of hazardous waste from long term storage; the waste held for short periods (ten days or less) as part of the routine transportation of that waste would be subject to the original manifest. These amendments do not apply to inactive facilities or to the inactive portions of treatment, storage and disposal facilities. The applicability of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations to those facilities is the subject of another amendment which is currently being developed by the Agency. In the interim, persons shipping hazardous waste from inactive facilities or inactive portions of facilities are advised to manifest each shipment and comply, with the other requirements of Part 262. The rationale for applying these requirements to owners and operators of hazardous waste management facilities parallels that underlying the entire Subtitle C system. Congress established the system to protect public health and the environment during management of hazardous waste from the time of generation through ultimate disposition. The key to the system is the manifest, . which enables EPA (dr the states, when CCR 000040567 070 Federal Register / Vpl. 43, Na. 232 / Wednesday. December 31, 1980 / Rules, and Regulations (heir programs ace appcevedjto track V. EffectiveDate hazardous waste which they generated ir dividual shipments of hazardous waste. RCRA places the initial burden of preparing the, manifest, recordkeeping, and reporting on the generator. Other requirements placed upon the generator--proper packaging, labeling, placarding and marking--ace essential Section 3010(b)'of RCRA provides that EPA's hazardous waste regulations and revisions take effect six months after promulgation. The-purpose of this requirement is to allow persons handling hazardous waste sufficient time to comply with major new regulatory at that facility.) PART 264--STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE ANO DISPOSAL FACILITIES 2. Add the following paragraph to in ensuring transportation of hazardous wastes in a manner which protects human health and the environment. Further, section 3004(2] requires facilities to comply with the manifest system established under section 3002 which assures that hazardous wastes are sent to permitted facilities. Therefore, the owner or operator of a facility who ships hazardous waste elsewhere is in a position analogous to the generator. It Is his act which ought to trigger thB application or regulatory controls designed to ensure the safe transportation of hazardous wastes. For this reason, EPA believes that it is entirely appropriate for the owner or operator to comply with the Part 2d? requirements. fV. A. ktarim Final' Regulations EPA has determined that good cause exists to promulgate these amendments without rnotice and comment. They conform the regulations to their original intaj '! " ...... ` cradVto-grave" control l v-t i,____ waste. The failure to explicitly include these, requirements has caused substantial uncertainty and confusion, in the regulated community. To prolong this confusion during the completion of formal rulemaking could result in substantial hardship on the regulated community. In addition, there are compelling environmental reasons for EPA to undertake this procedural-course. There are no explicit requirements.without these amendments for persona who remove hazardous waste'from storage facilities. This means that a substantial volume of hazardous waste which.la requirements. For most facilities, EPA believes that these amendments conform the regulations to normal operating pra____ - and therefore the amendments do not Impose new obligations on these persons. The Agency doeB, however, recognize that certain facilities may have to take some time to bring their practice up to the new requirements..Becaufie of the urgency of these amendments, however. EPA has decided to make these amendments effective immediately. Without such effect, as discussed in the preceding section, serious threat,to human health and the environment exists. VI. Environmental, Economic and RagulateryTmpacts For the most part the economic, reporting and recordkeeping impacts of these amendments am nainiaraaf. Tbs estimated impacts-developed' for the May 19 regulations included the majority of those impacts (elated to shipments of hazaidous waste from treatment at the generator's facility were included in the calculations, The Agency is unable to estimate thanost and Impact Increase from these, amendment* but believes*for foe reasons stated above, that the . '-tniTjyd anvironmental benefita grea tly outweigh- the minimal burden placedon deregulated community, dated: Dtoenbtr 2Z, 198&- Ooagias M Casltfc Administrator. Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as fellows: PART 282--STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS 2B4.71.' 264.7-1 use of the man(fast system. ***** (c) Whenever a shipment of hazardous waste is initiated from a facility, the owner or operator of that facility must comply with the requirement" jf Part 262 of this chapter. [Comment: The provisions of 262.34 are applicable to the on-site accumulation of hazardous wastes by generators. Therefore, the provisions of 5 282.34 only apply to owners or operators who are shipping hazardous waste which they generated at that facility.] PART 265--INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS ANO OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACHTOES 3. Add the following paragraph to 265.21: 265.71 Us* of ths manifest system. ***** (c) Whenever a, shipment of hazardous waste is initiated from a facility, the owner or operator of that facility must comply with the requirements of Fart 262 of this chapter. [Comment: The provisions of S 262.34 are applicable to the on-site accumulation of hazardous wastes by generators, Therefore, the provisions of 262.34 only apply to owners or operators who am shipping hazardous waste which (hey generated at that facility.] [W Dm. eo-wrao FBd sums cow <ste-ss- MS sm] otherwise subject to regulation may be WASTE shipped and handled without any regulatory controls. Based on thu literal languageof the regulations,,as presently X. Add the following-paragraph to laK.10: 40 CFR Parts 262,2*3, 264, and 265 ISWH-FHL 1715-21 drafted, these wastes need net be manifested, nor properly labeled or packaged, nor sent to a proper 282.10 Purpose,- scop* site appflcatoUtty. **,** (f) An owner or operator whoinitiates Transportation of Hazardous Waste by Rail treatment, storage or disposal-facility. . a shipment ^ hazardous waste from a AftSNCY: Environmental Protection EPA haadetermined, howave*, that these requirements are necessary to r "o;eot human health and the 'ronmant. These requtrenwnisiero- treatment, storage, or disposal facility must comply with the generator stendants ealablished in titerParti (Note: The. previsions, of } 28244'areapplicable Agency. ACTION: Interim final amendment and request for comments._____ ' ;iy necessary whether a generator to theon-site accumniation of hazardous SUMMARY? Regulations promulgated in i ~ L: .ioue waste waste by generatort-.Ttwafore,. tire owner or operator of a provisions of $28fcM only apply to- May i960, established requirements for the- transportation of hazardous waste , .^ciii.y does so. , owners or operators whsiare shipping: by rail 4&FR 3349ft(May 1* 3980). The CCR 000040568 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 252 / Wednesday, December 31. 1980 / Rules and Regulations 66871 amendments published today change the regulations to allow in certain instances shipments of hazardous waste to be transported by rail transporters without a manifest, provided the shipment is accompanied by certain information on the manifest; to require under certain circumstances initial rail transporters to forward copies of the manifest to the next non-rail transporter or the designated facility; to clarify signature requirements of the manifest and rail shipping paper, and to eliminate recordkeeping requirements for intermediate rail transporters. DATES: Effective date; December.31, 1980. Comment date; This amendment is promulgated as an interim final rule. The Agency will accept comments on It.until March 2,1981. addressee: Comments on the amendment should be sent to Docket Clerk [Docket No. 3003-Railroads], Office of Solid Waste (WH-563), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20400. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT*. Em general information contact RblfF. or Carolyn Barley [202] 753-9150, Bffice of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M. Street, SW. Washington, DC 20460. for information on implementation, contact: Region I, Dennis Huebner, Chief. Radiation. Waste Management Branch, John F. Kennedy Building, Boston, Massachusetts 02203, (617) 223-5777 Region U, Dr. Ernest Regna. Chief, Solid Waste Branch, 28 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007, (212) 284-0504/ 5 Region III, Robert L Allen, Chief, Hazardous Materials Branch, 8th and Walnut Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106, (215) 597-0980 Region IV, James Scarbrough, Chief, Residuals Management Branch, 345 Courtland Street, N.E.. Atlanta, Georgia 30365. (404) 881-3018 Region V. Karl J. Klepitsch. Jr,, Chief, Waste Management Branch. 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 00604, (312) 886-6148 Region VI, R. Sian Jorgensen. Acting Chief. Solid Waste Branch, 1201 Elm Street, First International Building, Dallas. Texas 75270. (214) 787-2845 Region VII, Robert L. Morby. Chief, Hazardous Materials Branch, 324 B. 11th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, (816) 374-3307 ; Region VIII, Lawrence P. Cazda, Chief, Waste Management Branch, 1860 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado 80203. (303) 837-2221 Region IX, Arnold R, Den, Chief. Hazardous Materials Branch, 215 - Fremont Street, San Francisco. California 94105. (415) 558-4606 Region X Kenneth D. Feigner, Chief, Waste Management Branch, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle. Washington 98101, (206) 442-1260 I. Authority These amendments are issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 3002, 3003, 3004, 3005 and 3006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 as amended (RCRA), 42. U.S.C. 8912(a), 6921, 6922. 6923, 6924. 6925 and 6928. II. Background On February 26,1980 and May 19. 1980, EPA promulgated regulations establishing a federal hazardous waste management system. 45 FR12722 (February 26,1900] 45 FR 33086 (May 10, 1980). A central feature of this program is a manifest system which is designed to track shipments of hazardous waste from the point of generation through ultimate disposition. Parts 282,263,264 and 265 contain requirements for the transportation of hazardous waste and . the use of an accompanying manifest The regulations set special requirements when hazardous waste Is delivered to a hazardous waste management facility by rail. Recognizing that railroads had sophisticated computerized tracking and information systems, the regulations allow railroads to use e shipping paper rather than a manifest and waive signature requirements between intermediate rail carriers. Since the promulgation of the regulations, representatives of the rail industry have contended that EPA did not go far enough and that special requirements were also necessary for intermodal shipments of hazardous waste (i.e. those which involve both railroads and other types of transportation). It was the position of the rail industry that the manifest system, if applied without adjustment to intermodal shipments, would so disrupt the normal operating practices of railroads as to effectively prevent the use of this method of transportation. Several railroads have indicated that they would refuse all shipments of hazardous waste. EPA had no intention of'discouraging rail transportation of hazardous wastes. The original regulations limited rail transportation requirements to shipments delivered to facilities by rail because the Agency believed that it was essential that non-rail transporters comply with all the requirements of the manifest system. Unlike railroads, those transporters may not have established tracking and information systems. In discussions with the rail industry EPA was able to devise a workable system which would facilitate intermodal rail transportation without undermining the operation of the manifest system or jeopardize protection to human health or the environment. The amendments promulgated today establish a system which allows intermodal transportation involving railroads without the need for a manifest accompanying the waste during the rail portion of the shipment; ensures that non-rail transporters carry a manifest; and imposes no increased burden upon any person involved in the transportation of hazardous waste. EPA believes that these minor changes in the regulations achieve a practical solution to this problem without any sacrifice to the objectives underlying the manifest system. EPA has not extended today's amendments to include transportation of bulk shipments by water, which in the original regulations were treated in a manner similar to the railroads. EPA has not received information Indicating that that the manifest requirements are not working,In these situations. Therefore, with the exception of the change regarding international shipment, the changes made today concern only the ~ manifest requirements for railroads. III. Interim Find Amendments A. Shipments Delivered to Facilities by Rail One substantive change and several minor wording changes have been made In the manifest requirements when the shipment is delivered to the designated facility by rail. If a railroad picks up the hazardous waste at the generator's site, or if a non-rail transporter delivers the shipment to a rail transporter, the railroad must sign the manifest, return a copy to the generator or non-rail transporter, and ensure that a shipping paper containing the essential manifest information accompanies the waste. Signatures between intermediate rail transporters are not required. The generator must send copies of the manifest to the designated facility if the railroad picks up the shipment at the generator's facility. When a rail transporter receives a shipment from a non-rail transporter this amendment requires the intitial rail carrier (rather than the non-rail transporter as required in the May 19, regulations) to forward the manifest to the designated facility or next non-rail transporter. In this situation it appears that the rail transporter is better situated to-take the CCR 000040569 j6972 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 252 / Wednesday, December 31, 1980 / Rules and Regulations a taps necessary to forward the manifest. The transfer of the waste occurs typically at a rail yard or terminal where the rail transporter has the personnel and. facilities to ensure transmit!ai of the manifest. Upon-delivery of the waste to tha facility, the manifest or shipping paper (if the manifest has not arrived) must be signed. The owner or operator of the hazardous waste management facility must return the manifest or signed shipping paper to tha generator and also retain copies of the manifest and the shipping paper (if it has been signed in lieu of the manifest at the time of delivery). A change in the recordkeeping requirements has been made. Intermediate rail transporters ate not required to retain a copy of the. manifest or shipping paper: the recordkeeping requirements are keyed to the initial and final rail transporter. The existing recordkeeping practices of tha rail industry include detailed interchange information which track the movement of individual railcars. This information will enable EPA. if necessary, to determine where and when transfers between rail transporters occurred. Because of the adequacy of exislting practices in the industry, EPA has de'ermii,^.. that intermediate rafl transnortera do not need to physically reta. . ct. " ' shi' ping paper. The initial and Ana, ran uv .isporters, however, ptay more importsa*rotes in the transportation of these shipments, in chiding signing and dieting the manifest, and the regulations maintain responsibilities on them: If appears appropriate, therefore, for the recordkeeping requirements of the original regutations to remain applicable to them. B. Interm&dal Transportation of. Hazardous Waste The regulations, as amended today,, recognise that shipments of wastes may involve different types of transportation and that the special requirements for rail transportation should apply in these situations. The regulationsthave been accordingly adjusted to take into accouut situations in which the final transportation is not by railroad. The only difference In this.case is that the amendments require, the manifest to be forwarded to tho next-non-rail transporter designated on the manifest The amended regulations allow the rail transporter to transfer tha waste shipment to.non-rail transporters U having carried the manifest whh : ` -". aste shipment. At this tima;. ha ..ianiiest muslbe signed .ad '"j both transporters. Inis means, of course, that tho non-rail transporter must have received' the manifest from eithm- the generator or the initial rail transporter before accepting the waste. The Agency remains convinced that the mamfert, rather than the shipping paper, is essential far the transportation of hazardous waste by means other than rail. The manifest, signed tiy aU appropriate parties, must accompany allnon-rail transportation of hazardous w >. Once a non-railtransporter accepts the waste shipment with the manifest, the general manifest requirements of Part 262 apply and the manifest becomes the operative dbcoment. The non-rail transporter meet deliver the shipment to the next designated' person, obtain the signatureantf dote f that person and retain a copyofthe manifest. C. Signature Requirements for Owners and Operator* ofHasarchue Waste ManagementPacdktes One minor change has been made in the Part 264 and 263-*regulations applicable to owners and operators of hazardous waste management facilities. Sections 26471(b), and 285.zl(b),of the May 19,lfl80,regiiiatlona required tha owner or operator of the facility to sign and date the shipping1paper, note discrepancies on this document, , and return a copy of tha shipping paper to the transporter. These regulations were keyed to th*iitaiatiai*iii.wttah:th0 facility had not received thamanifost from the generator. EPA intended, however, that if the manifost'kasbeen received, it would be need. The regulations hawbeen amendedto clarify this. D. International Shipments The May T9,1960 regulations required that transporters who-ship-hazardous waste out of the United Staforta sign and date the manifest return ar copy to the generator, and retain a copy of the manifest. For rail and water (bulk) shipment, however, tha regulations established no mechanism to ensure that the rail or. water bulk transporter bad a copy of'the manifest. These transporters, if not the initial transporter, are required to have a shipping paper bit tha manifest does not have to accompany the shipment. Tha regulations have been amended to require the.geoarator (or the Initial rail, transporter if the< waste i delivered to thereilcaad) to forward copies of the manifest totbe-laetrailar water bvik traosportac la handle the waste shipment' in the UtotediRtoAft. E. State Program Requirements Part 123 of the May regulations specifies certain requirements that a State program must meet in order to obtain interim authorization and final authorization undersecfion 3006 of KCRA. Specific sections of Parts 262 and 263 related to rail transportation were cited. These amendments to Part 262 and 283 added new provisions. Part 123 has therefore been amended to correctly cite these new provisions. This action, which is simply a change in the sections cited, does no{ place any additional burden on States seeking interim-or final authorization. F Department of Transportation Amendments The May regulations concerning the transportation of hazardous waste resulted from a joint rulemaking effort with the Department of Transportation (DOT). EPA adopted certain DOT regulations and DOT revised its hazardous materiala transportation regulations to encompass the transportation oThazardoua waste. These amendments to the May regulations, in order to be. fully implemented, require DOT to amend its regulations. DOT baa indicated that it plans to publish corresponding amendments to its regulations in the near future, IV. Effective Date Section 3010(b) of RCRA provides that EPA's hazardous waste regulations and revisions thereto take, effect six months after promulgation. The purpose of this requirement is to allow persons handling hazardous waste sufficient lead time to prepare to comply with major new regulatory requirements. The amendment promulgated today, however, reduces and simplifies the existing requirements applicable to rail transportae. In addition the Agency believes that an effective date six months after promulgation would cause substantial and unnecessary disruption in the implementation ofthe regulations and would not be in ttte public interest. The regulatory provisions that these amendments modify took effect on November 19, I960. In the absence of the effectuation of these amendments, rail transportation of hazardous wastes would be severely disrupted. The Agency has derided, that without these changes, the rail industry woald be unduly burdened with no additional protection afforded to human health or the environment Therefore:, this amendment) to effective immediately. CCR 000040570 idaral Ragister / Vol, 45, No. 252 / Wednesday. December 31, 1980 ( Rules and Regulations 88973 Promulgation in Interim Final Form These amendments make the practical oration of the manifest system issible in situations involving rail and m-rail transportation of hazardous aste. They will prevent the disruption ' rail transportation by relieving the iif industry from complying with npractical requirements. They do not, i any appreciable manner, reduce the rotection of human health and ihe nvironment nor do they change the ssential features of the manifest ystem. Although the Agency would prefer to ngage in formal rulemaking prior to the iromulgation of these amendments, it relieves that good cause exists to waive hese procedures, (See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). Without Immediate promulgation, substantive hardship would be imposed on all sectors of the regulated community, particularily upon generators dependent on railroads to transport their hazardous waste to proper hazardous waste management facilities. The changes are, furthermore; the outgrowth of extensive, and ongoing, discussions with the rail industry. The aiwhments, although promulgated wn|pt formal prior opportunity to comment, do reflect substantial consideration of the position of one central portion of the regulated community, VI. Regulatory Impacts The effect of these amendments is to reduce the overall costs, economic impacts, and recordkeeping requirements of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. This is principally achieved by removing the recordkeeping requirements for intermediate rail transporters. The Agency is unable to estimate these cost and impact reductions. The Agency believes, however, that the protection of human health and the environment of these regulations is not reduced by these amendments. Dated: December 22. I960. Douglas M. Costle, Administrator. Title 40 CFR is amended as follows: PART 262--STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE ^1. Paragraph (c) of 262.23(c) is flrased to read as follows: ^2.23 lAmended1 ***** (c) For shipments of hazardous waste within the United States solely by water (bulk shipments only), the generator must send three copies of the manifest dated and signed in accordance with ' this section to the owner or operator of the designated facility or the last water (bulk shipment) transporter to handle the waste in the Uplted States if exported by water. Copies of tits manifest are not required for each transporter. 2. A new $ 282.23(d), Is added to read as follows: ***+# (d) For rail shipments of hazardous waste within the United States which originate at the site of generation, the generator must send at least three copies of the manifest dated and signed in accordance with this section to: (i) The next non-rail transporter, if any: or (ii) The designated facility if transported solely by rail; or (ili) The last rail transporter to handle the waste in the United States if exported by rail. 3. The note following i 282.23, Is changed to read as follows: Note,--See | 263.20(e) sad (f) for special provisions for rail or water (bulk shipment) transporters. PART 28^--STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 4. Section 263.20(e) introductory text, (1), (4) and (5). la revised to read aa follows: 9263.20 iAmended) 4 * *' (e) The requirements of paragraph (c). (d) and (f) of this section do not apply to waterflrolk shipment) transporters ff: (1) The hazardous waste is delivered by water (bulk shipment) to the designated facility; and 4 4 ** (4) The person delivering the hazardous waste to the initial water (bulk shipment) transporter obtains the date of delivery and signature of the water (bulk shipment) transporter on the manifest and forwards it to the designated facility; and (5) A copy of the shipping paper or manifest is retained by each water (bulk shipment) transporter in accordance with I 203.22. * tf 5. A new 8 263.20(f) is added to reed aa follows and remaining paragraph (f) of 293L20 is renumbered as paragraph (g): (f) For shipments involving rail transportation, the requirements of paragraphs (ch (d) and (a) do not apply and the foliowing requiremants do apply: (1) When accepting hazardous waste from a non-rail transporter, the initial rail transporter must; (1) Sign and date the manifest acknowledging acceptance of the hazardous waste; (ii) Return a signed copy of the manifest to the non-rail transporter; (ill) Forward at least three copies of the manifest to; (A) The next non-rail transporter. If any; or, (B) The designated facility, if the shipment is delivered to that facility by rail; or (C) The last rail transporter designated to handle the waste in the United States; fiv) Retain one copy of the manifest and rail shipping paper in accordance with 1263.22. (2) Rail transporters must ensure that a shipping paper containing all the Information required on the manifest (excluding the EPA identification numbers, generator certification, and signahmes) accompanies the hazardous waste at all times. Note--Intermediate rail transporters are not required to sign either the manifest or shipping paper. (3) When delivering hazardous waste to the designated facility, a rail transporter must; (i) Obtain the date of delivery and handwritten signature of die owner or operator of the designated facility on the manifest or the shipping paper fif the manifest has not been received by the facility); and (ii) Retain a copy of the manifest or signed shipping paper in accordance with 9 263.22, (4) When delivering hazardous waste to a non-rail transporter a rail. transporter must; (i) Obtain the date of delivery and the handwritten signature of the next nonrail transporter on the manifest: and (ii) Retain a copy of the manifest in accordance with $ 203.22. (5) Before accepting hazardous waste from a rail transporter, a non-rail transporter must sign and date the manifest and provide a copy to the rail transporter. 6. 8 263.22(b) introducing text is amended to read as follows: 8 263.22 [Amended) 4**#4 (b) For shipments delivered to the designated facility by wirier (bulk shipment), each water (balk shipment) transporter meet retain a copy of the shipping paper containing all the information * * *. 7. A new 8 26&22(e) is added to read as follows and paragraph (c) and id) of CCR 000040571 8GS74 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 252 / Wednesday, December 31, 1980 / Rules and Regulatiens a 263.22 are re-numbered as paragraphs (d) and (e), respectively. ***** (r| For shipments of hazardous waste by rail within the United States: (i) The initial rail transporter must keep a copy of the manifest and shipping paper with all the information required in $ 263.20(f)(2) for a period of three years from the date the hazardous waste was accepted by the initial transporter: and (ii) The final rail transporter must keep a copy of the signed manifest (or the shipping paper if signed by the designated facility in lieu of the manifest) for a period of three years from the date the hazardous waste was accepted by the initial transporter. Note.--Intermediate rail transporters are not required to keep records pursuant to these regulations. PART 264--STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES 8. Section 264.71(b) Introductory text, (2) and (4) are amended and (1), (3), and (5) are revised as follows: 26* 71 [. ~nded] ***** (b) 1 * .l 'ver from a rail or water (buk shipment; transporter, hazardous waBte which la accompanied by a shipping paper containing all the information required on the manifest *** (1) Sign and date each copy of the manifest or shipping paper (if the manifest has not been received) to certify that the hazardous waste covered by the manifest or shipping paper was received; (2) Note any significant discrepancies [as defined in 5 264.72(a)) in the manifest or shipping paper (if the manifest has not been received) on each copy of the manifest or shipping paper. * * * (3) Immediately give the rail or water (bulk shipment) transporter at least one copy of the manifest or shipping paper (if the manifest has not been received); (4) Within 30 dayB after the delivery, send a copy of the signed and dated 'lanifest to the generator: however, if the manifest has not been received within 30 days after delivery, the owner or operator, or his agent, must send a c.ony of the shipping paper signed and ' `"i th.i generato" nnd * * * ' ^ run at the facility a copy of the - A :.h. ijpiiift paper iif signed in ui - jt at the time of delivery) for at least three years from the date of delivery. PART 266--INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES 0. Section 265.71(b) introductory text, (2) and (4) are amended and (1), (3), and (9) are revised as follows: 265.71 [Amei UVstj ***** (b) If a facility receives, from a rail or water (bulk shipment) transporter, hazardous waste which is accompanied by a shipping paper containing all the information required on the manifest^ ** A (1) Sign and date each copy of the manifest or shipping paper (if the manifest has not been received) to certify that the hazardous waste covered by the manifest or shipping paper was received; (2) Note any significant discrepancies (as defined in | 265.72(a)) in the manifest or shipping paper (if the manifest has not been received) on each copy of the manifest or shipping paper **# (3) Immediately give the rail or water (bulk shipment) transporter at least one copy of the manifest or shipping paper (if the manifest has not been received): (4) Within 30 days after the delivery, send a copy of the signed and dated manifest to the generator; however, if the manifest has not been received within 30 days after delivery, the owner or operator, or his agent, must send a copy of the shipping paper signed and dated to the generator; and * * * (5) Retain at the facility a copy of the manifest and shipping paper (if signed in lieu of the manifest at the time of delivery) for at least three years from the date of delivery. PART 123-STATE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS 10. Revise 123.34(f)(3) to read as follows: 123.34 [Amended] (0* * * (3) Ensure that all wastes offered for transportation are accompanied by the manifest, except in the case of shipments by rail or water specified in 40 CFR 262.23 (c) and (d) and 262.20 (e) and (f). The State program shall provide requirements for shipments by rail or water equivalent to those under 40 CFR 5S 262.23 (c) and (d) and 5 263.20(e) and (f). 11. Revise $ 123.35(c) to read rs follows: 123.35 [Amended] ***** (c) The State must require the transporter to carry the manifest during transport, except in the case of shipments by rail or water specified in 40 CFR 263.20 (e) and (f) and to deliver waste only to the facility designated on the manifest. The State program shall provide requirements for shipments by rail or water equivalent to those under 40 CFR 263.20 (e) and (f). 12. Revise 123.l28(b)(7)(ii) to read as follows: 123.126 [Amended I ***** (b) * * * (7)* * * (ii) The manifest accompany all wastes offered for transport, except in the case of shipments by rail or water specified in 262.23 (c) and (d) and 263.20 (e) and (f); and 13. Revise 123.128(c)(5) to read as follows: 123.128 [Amended] ***** (c)* * * (5) The State program must require that transporters carry the manifest with all shipments, except in the case of shipments by rail or water specified in 40 CFR 263.20 (e) and (f). |PR Doc. BO-40651 Filed 13-30-60', MS am] BILLOW COM BMO-SO-M CCR 000040572 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 252 / Wednesday, December 31, 1980 / Notices 86543 al 3CS Oil and Caa Sales. No. A66 end No. Gulf of Mexico. December Z4: Proposed ) two OCS oil and gas lease sales for tracts e and 66 In the Gulf of Mexico. The tracts Inprise 1,979.794 acres offshore of the ites of Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, ississippi and Florida. The proiect will dude the construction of 175 development ells, 185 exploration wells, 375 miles, of fahore pipeline and 30 new platforms. The tematives consider. (1) hold sale as upoted, (2) modify via potential tract stations, (3) delay sales, and (4) withdraw ties. (FES-80-54.) Comment* made by: AHP, OC. DOI, DOT, EPA. FERC, USAF, USA. tate agencies, groups, individuals, and ustnesws. (E1S Order No. 800988.) IEPAKTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Contact: Mr. Martin Convisser, Director, Office of Environment and Safety, U.S. department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, iW.. Washington, D C. 20590, (202) 428-4357. Federal Aviation Administration Final Boston-Logan Airport Bird Islands Flats, Suffolk County, Mass.. December 22: Proposed is Development of the Bird bland Flab located at the southwest comer of Boston-Logan International Airport in Suffolk Ctefe, Massachusetts. The fiats encompass aHHimately 85 acres of a 234 acre landfill. EadTaitemative includes cargo facilities, freight forwarders and a noise buffer zone. The development alternative* consider. (1) Low intensity cargo, (2) high intensity cargo, (3) mixed use, and (4) no action. Each of the development alternatives are examined with and without general aviation land use. Comments mads by: HHS, DOT, COE, HUD. EPA DOI. DOE. (EIS Order No. 800979.) Federal Highway Administration Draft Romance Road Extension, Portage, Kalamazoo County, Mich.. December 22: Proposed is the extension of Romence Road from South Westnedge Avenue to Portage Road in the city of Portage, Kalamazoo County, Michigan. The extension will include additional lanes, right-of-way and construction of an access road. The alternatives considered are: (1) Various alignments. (2) non action, and (3) other transportation modes. (FHWA-MI-EI8-8003-D.) (EIS Order No. 80097a) TX-71 Upgrading, City of La Grange. Fayette County. Tex., December 22: Proposed is the upgrading of TX-71 within the city of La Grange, Fayette County, Texas, The improvements would involve reconstructing TX-71 as a four lance divided facility with partial access. The length of TX-71 Involved is approximately 10.1 miles. (FHWA-TX-EIS80-03-D.) (EIS Order No. 800983.) ^Htuefield Bypass, VA-19/480 to VA-720, ^^Kewell County, Va, December 22: Proposed is the construction of the Bluefield Bypass from the intersection of existing VA-19/480 west of Bluefield in Tazewell County, Virginia. The bypass would provide a complete four lane facility to the West Virginia State line extending for an approximate length of 3.8 miles. The facility would have interchanges with full access in all directions. (FHWA-VA-EIS-ao-Ol-D.) (E1S Order No. 800984.) Final Supplement Hl-3, North Haiawa Valley alignment (FS1), Honolulu, County. Hawaii. December 23: This statement supplements final EIS. No. 730808. Tiled 5-21-73. Proposed is the realignment of HI-3 through the North Haiawa Valley in Honolulu County, Hawaii. The facility would be either a six lane or four lane highway. This supplement specifically addresses the four lane segment ofW-S which would skirt the perimeter of Ho'omaluhia Park in Kaneohe. (FHWA-H1E!S-77-01-F(S).) (EIS Order No. 800985.) [PH Doc, SS-M7M Fttad ta-XMOi arts ami wluno coo* tcaoHtr-tt [SWH-FRL 1717-*] Hazardous Waat* Management System: ktenttflcattan and Uattno of Hazardous Waste AOSNCV; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. action: Grant of temporary exclusions and request for comment. summary: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is today temporarily excluding solid wasteB generated at several particular generating facilities from hazardous waste status. This action responds to delisting petitions submitted under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 and are granted pursuant to 40 CFR 260.22(m). The effect of this action is to temporarily exclude certain wastes generated at particular facilities from listing as hazardous wastes under 40 CFR Part 261, and from the management standards issued by EPA under Sections 3002 through 3006 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA) (40 Parts 262 through 265 and 122 through 124 of this Chapter). DATS*: Effective date; December 24, 1980. EPA will accept public comments on these temporary exclusions until March 2,1981. Any person may request a hearing on these temporary exclusions by filing a request with John P. Lehman, whose address appears below, by January 21,1981. The request must contain the information prescribed in $ 260.20(d) of this chapter. AOOM88S8: Comments should be sent to the Docket Clerk, Office of Solid Waste (WH-565), U.S, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. Communications should identify the regulatory docket number "Section 3001/Delisting Petitions." Requests for hearing should be addressed to John P. Lehman, Director, Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division. Office of Solid Waste (WH505), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460. The public docket for these temporary exclusions is located in Room 27ll, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, and is available for viewing from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m,, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myles Morse. Office of Solid Waste (WH-568), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401M St., S.W., Washington, D.C. (202) 755-9187. SUFFUMINTARY INFORMATION: On )uly 10.1980 and November 12,1980 as part of its final and interim final regulations implementing Section 3001 of RCRA, EPA published lists of hazardous wastes from non-specific and from specific sources. See 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32 (45 FR 47832-47830 and 74890-74892). These wastes were listed as hazardous because they typically and frequently exhibit either any of the characteristics of hazardous wastes identified in Subpart C of Part 281 (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity and EP toxicity) or meet the criteria for listing contained in S 261.11(a)(2) or $ 261.11(a)(3). The Agency, however, recognizes that individual waste streams may vary depending on raw materials, industrial processes and other factors. Thus, while a type of waste described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a specific waste meeting the listing description from an individual facility may not be hazardous. For this reason, S { 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion procedure, allowing persons to demonstrate that a specific waste from a particular generating facility should not be regulated as a hazardous waste. To be excluded, petitioners must show that the waste produced at their facilities does not meet any of the criteria under which die waste was listed. (See $ 260.22(a).) Wastes which are "delisted" (i.e., excluded) may, however, still be hazardous if they exhibit any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste and generators remain obligated to make this determination. In addition to wastes listed as hazardous in SS 261.31 and 261.32, residues from the treatment, storage, or disposal of listed hazardous wastes also are eligible for exclusion and remain hazardous wastes until excluded. (See SS 261.31(c) and (d)(2).) Again, the substantive standard for "delisting" is that the waste not meet any of the criteria for which the waste was listed CCR 000040573 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 252 / Wednesday. December 31. 1960 / Notices originally. Where the waste *s derived from one or more listed hazardous wastes, the demonstration may be made with respect to each constituent listed waste, or the waste mixture as a whole. (See $ 260.22(b).) Like other excluded wastes, excluded hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal residues remain subject to Subpart C of Part 261. and so may be hazardous if they exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous waste. EPA recognizes as well that there will be circumstances where immediate action on petitions is appropriate. Therefore, upon Agency review of a submitted petition, the Administrator may under 6 260.22(m) grant a temporary exclusion if there is substantial likelihood that an exclusion will finally be granted. It should be noted that the Agency has not run spot checks on the test data submitted to date in exclusion petitions. The Agency believes that the sworn affidavits submitted with each petition sufficiently binds the petitioners to ensure presentation of truthful and accurate test results. The Agency may. ^lowever, spot sample and analyze wastes dr groundwater before a final decision is made whether to exclude any particu yap*" ,he hizardous waste regu.aLous. We also note that the temporary exclusions granted today apply only to the Federal hazardous waste management system established under the RCRA. States remain free to take any action they deem appropriate with Regard to these wastes. The temporary exclusions published today involve the following petitioners: Virginia Chemicals Inc. for its facilities in Bucks, Alabama and Leeds, South Carolina; Bekaert Steel Wire Corporation, Rome, Georgia; the Florida Wire and Cable Company, Jacksonville, Florida: Wiremill Incorporated, Sanderson, Florida; the Firestone Steel Products Company. Spartanburg. South Carolina; the American Recovery Company, Baltimore, Maryland; Armco incorporated, Middletown, Ohio; the Reynolds Aluminum Company for its facilities in Richmond, Virginia; Ewa Beach, Hawaii; Houston, Texas; Kansas City, Missouri; Guayama, Puerto Rico; Woodbridge, New Jersey; Salisbury, North Carolina; Hayward, California; mt. Washington: Tampa, Florida; . . . ,ince, Caliiornia; and Middletown. - and More ee \nto Equipment, .a, Arkansas. I. Virginia Chemicals Inc. A. Petition for Exclusion Virginia Chemicals Inc. (Virginia Chemicals), involved in the production of Bodium hydrosulfate, has petitioned the Agency to exclude its distillation column bottom sludge presently listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F003, (The following spent non-halogenated solvents: Xylene, acetone, ethyl acetate, ethylbenzene, eth'd ether, methyl isobutyl ketone, n-buiyl alcohol, cyclohexanone, and methanol; and the still bottoms from the recovery of these solvents), at their facilities in Bucks, Alabama and Leeds, South Carolina. Virginia Chemicals has petitioned to exclude Us residue because they claim that its still bottoms no longer meet the criteria for which the waste was listed in (40 CFR 261.11(a)(1)). Virginia Chemicals Utilizes the sodium formate process In the production of sodium hydrosulfate. TTie reaction is run in a methanol solution which is not part of the reaction. The methanol is then recovered from the water of reaction and recycled to the process. The distillation still bottoms discharged from the methanol recovery process are comprised primarily of sodium and sulfur salts and are sold as a co-product of the sodium hydrosulfate process. Virginia Chemicals has submitted descriptions of its sodium hydrosulfate production and methanol recovery processes, constituent analyses of the distillation bottom material for methanol, and flash point tests for this material. Virginia Chemicals claims that sim j i* methanol recovery ia 99.0+% efficient, less than 0.1% methanol remains in the distillation still bottoms and therefore, this residue cannot be considered hazardous. Virginia Chemicals further states that its residue does not exhibit the characteristic of ignitability ( 261.21) for which EPA Hazardous Waste F0O3 is listed in Part 261 Subpart D and as described in i 261.21 of the regulations. Results of ignitability tests for both facilities indicate that the flash point of the still bottom material is greater than 212F. B. Agency Analysis and Action EPA Hazardous Waste No. F003 is listed due to the ignitability of spent nonhalogenuted solvents, one of which is methanol, the solvent used in Virginia Chemical's process. Analyses submitted by Virginia Chemicals indicate that methanol is present in the distillation still bottoms in only low percentages (c 0.1%) by volume. This is well below the limit of 24 percent alcohol by volume set in S 281.2l(a)(i) of the regulations. Section 2B1.21(a)(i) of the regulations also indicates that solutions with flashpoints above 140*F are considered non-ignitable. Flashpoint tests run on Virginia Chemicals distillation still bottom discharges at both facilities indicate that the flash point is greater than 212F. Virginia Chemicals has sufficiently demonstrated the non-hazardouq nature of its distillation still bottoms due to the efficiency of its methanol recovery system. The Agency, therefore, has granted a temporary exclusion to Virginia Chemicals' Bucks, Alabama and Leeds, South Carolina facilities, for its distillation bottom discharges from its sodium hydrosulfite process, aB described in its petition, from its listing under EPA Hazardous Waste No. F003. C. Agency Information Needs for Final Delisting The Agency believes that Virginia Chemicals has submitted sufficient data for the final delisting of its distillation still bottoms. The Agency has granted a temporary exclusion to expedite delisting action for Virginia Chemicals. Final exclusion will be granted upon review of comments received in response to this publication. II. Bakaert Steel Wire Corporation A. Petition for Exclusion The Bekaert Steel Wire Corporation [Bekaert), involved in the manufacture of steel wire, has petitioned the Agency to exclude its wastewater treatment sludge, presently listed for the following EPA Hazardous Wastes: F008--Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations except from the following processes; (1) Sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating on carbon steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-aluminum plating on carbon steel; (5) cleaning/stripping associated with tin, zinc and aluminum plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical etching and milling of aluminum. F007--Spent cyanide plating bath solutions from electroplating operations (except for precious metals electroplating spent cyanide plating bath solutions) F008--Plating bath sludges from the bottom of plating baths from electroplating operations where cyanides are uaed in the process (except for precious metaia electroplating bath sludges) F009--Spent stripping and cleaning bath solutions from electroplating operations where cyanides are used in the process (except for precious metals electroplating spent stripping and cleaning bath solutions) CCR 000040574- Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 252 / Wednesday, December 31, 1980 / Notices 86545 )63 '--Sludge from lime treatment of spent pickle liquor from steel finishing - operations. The constituents of concern for these aates are cadmium, chromium, nickel, yanide and lead. Bekaert has petitioned > exclude its waste because it does not >eet the criteria for which they were sted. Bekaert utilizes the processes of wire rawing, hydrochloric acid pickling, and lectroplating of copper and zinc in its reduction of steel wire. Bekaert's wastewater treatment procesa for __ tickling and plating rinse water involves" austic soda neutralization, chlorine reatment for cyanide destruction, alcium hydroxide neutralization [to a >H of 8-10), ciarification/precipltation. ind pressure filtration. Bekaert claims hat its wastewater treatment process >roduces an environmentally stable iludge containing nan-hazardous levels )f cadmium, chromium, nickel, cyanide and lead. Bekaert has submitted a detailed description of its sludge treatment system, GP toxicity test results for all toxic constituents specified in 261.24 ofJtereguletions, and total constituent an^Pes of the sludge for cyanide. The samples were taken over a one month period which the petitioner claims represents the uniformity of the constituent concentrations in the waste. EP toxicity tests for cadmium, total chromium, nickel and lead produced maximum leachate concentrations of <0.02. 0.05,0,22, and <0.2 ppm, respectively. Constituent analysis of the wastewater sludge for cyanide revealed a maximum concentration of 0.01 ppm. B. Agency Analysis and Action The constituents of concern for which EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F006, F007, F008, FOOO and K062 are listed are cadmium, chromium, nickel, lead and cyanide. Although each of these constituents appear in Bekaert's Wastewater, it has sufficiently demonstrated that its wastewater treatment sludge is non-hazardous. Bekaert's waste treatment operation destroys the majority of cyanides in the wastewater, leaving residue concentrations not exceeding 0.01 ppm, which are considered negligible. Additionally, the concentrations of cadmium, chromium, and lead in extract November 12.1SB0 (45 PR 74S84). EPA ed waste K063 from the hazardous waste Hat 32). However, since these lime treatment sludges are generated from the treatment of a Hated* hazardous waste (IC0S2}, they still ere considered to be a hazardous waste (f 281.3(c)(2)). Further, they remain hazardous wastes until they no longer meet any of the characteristics of hazardous wastes and are excluded (8 281.3(d)(2)). samples of this sludge are well below the EP maximum toxicity levels. These low leachate levels indicate that the constituents are present essentially in an immobile form. Leachate analyses also indicate that the nickel present is substantially immobile and therefore not of regulatory concern. A Final pH range of 6-10 indicates that Bekaert's waste ' treatment system effectively neutralizes its acid wastes. The Agency therefore has granted a temporary exclusion to Bekaert's facility in Rome, Georgia for its treated electroplating and pickle liquor rinsewaters, as described in its petition. in. Florida Wire and Cable Company A. Petition for Exclusion The Florida Wire & Cable Company [FWC), Involved in the manufacture of galvanized high carbon steel wire and guy wire, has petitioned the Agency to exclude its sludge, formerly listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. K063, sludge from lime trestment of spent pickle liquor from steel finishing operations.1 FWC has petitioned to exclude its waste because it does not meet the criteria for which it was listed. FWC's operation includes the processes of cold drawing; hydrochloric acid pickling, and hot dip galvanizing, and stranding in the production of galvanized high carbon steeLtvfre and guy wire. Its waste treatment process for pickle liquor rinse and overflow .wastes involves neutralization, lime and polymer flocculation, settling, and pressure nitration. FWC claims that its sludge is environmentally stable and non-hazardous, and specifically that the sludge doeB not contain hazardous levels of chromium arid lead, the constituents of concern for spent pickle liquor (waste K062). FWC submitted a detailed description of its sludge treatment system, and EP toxicity test results for all toxic constituents specified in S 261.24 of the regulations. The samples were taken over a one month period which the petitioner claims represents the uniformity of constituent concentrations in the waste. EP toxicity tests showed maximum chromium and lead levels in the waste extract of 0.015 and 0.0S8 ppm, respectively. B. Agency Analysis and Action The constituents of concern in this waste, are chromium and lead. EP extracts from sludge samples analyzed by FWC show chromium and lead consistently well below the maximum EP toxicity levels. These low leachate. 'Sec footnote 1. levels indicate that the constituents are present essentially in an immobile form. A final pH of 8.5 indicates that FWC's waste treatment process effectively neutralizes its acid wastes. The Agency therefore has granted a temporary exclusion to FWC's facility in facksonville. Florida for its treated pickle liquor rinse and overflow wastes, as described in its petition. IV. WiremiU Incorporated A. Petition for Exclusion Wiremill Inc. (WiremiU), involved in the manufacture of high carbon steel wire, has petitioned the Agency to delist its sludge, formerly listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. K063, sludge from time treatment of spent pickle liquor from steel finishing operations.1 WiremiU has petitioned to exclude its waste because it does not meet the criteria for which it was listed. Wiremill uses the processes of cold drawing and hydrochloric acid pickling in the production of high carbon steel wire. Its waste treatment process for pickle liquor rinse and overflow wastes involves neutralization, lime and polymer flocculation, clarification, and pressed filtration. WiremiU claims that its sludge Is environmentally stable and non-hazardous, and specifically that the sludge does not contain hazardous levels of chromium and lead, the constituents of concern for spent pickle liquor (waste K062). WiremiU has submitted a detailed description of its sludge treatment system, and EP toxicity test results for all toxic constituents specified in $ 261.24 of the regulations. The samples were taken over a one-month period which the petitioner claims represents the uniformity of constituent concentrations in the waste. EP toxicity tests produced maximum leachate concentrations of <0.01 and 0.018 ppm for chromium and lead, respectively. B. Agency Analysis and Action The constituents of concern in this waste are ohrtimium and lead. EP extracts from sludge samples analyzed by Wiremill show chromium and lead consistently well below the maximum EP toxicity levels. These low leachate level* indicate that the constituents are present essentiaUy in an immobile form. A final pH of 8.7 indicates that Wirerniil's waste treatment process effectively neutralizes its acid wastes. The Agency therefore, has granted a temporary exclusion to WiremiU's facility in Sanderson, Florida for its ' Sm footnot* 1. CCR 0000A0575 *3^i Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 252 / Wednesday, December 31, 1980 / Notices treated pickle liquor rinse and overflow waster, as described in its petition. V. rirestone Steel Products Company A. Petition for Exclusion The Firestone Steel Products Company (Firestone), involved in the manufacture of stainless steel food containers and carbon steel automotive body panels, has petitioned the Agency to exclude its sludge, formerly listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. K063, sludge from the lime treatment of spent pickle liquor from steei finishing operations.4 Firestone has petitioned to exclude its waste because it does not meet the criteria for which it was listed. Firestone uses the processes of forming, weiding, assembly, and metal finishing (nitric and hydrofluoric acid pickling and sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum) in the production of food container. Its waste treatment process for spent pickle liquor and pickle liquor rinse and overflow wastes involves neutralization, lime and polymer flocculation, clarification, and pressed filtration. Firestone claims that its sludge is environmentally stable and hpn-hazsrdous and specifically that the Budge does not contain hazardous levels f chromium and lead, the constitu '<< of concern in the spent pickle li^uc.'('vtJ. '*') Firestone has submitted a detailed description of its sludge treatment system, and EP toxicity test results for all toxic constituents specified in 261.24 of the regulations. The samples were taken over a 2 month period which the petitioner claims represents the uniformity of constituent concentrations in the waste. EP toxicity tests produced maximum leachate concentrations of 0.16 and 0.056 ppm for chromium and lead, respectively. B. Agency Analysis and Action A final pH range of 6 to 8.5 indicates that Firestones' waste treatment system effectively neutralizes its acid wastes. EP extracts from sludge samples analyzed by Firestone show chromium and lead concentrations consistently well below the maximum EP toxicity levels. These low leachate levels indicate that the constituents of concern are present essentially in an immobile form. The Agency therefore has granted a temporary exclusion to Firestone Steel products Company's facility in ih.'-.rtenburg, South Carolina, for its .calc . smjnt pickle liquor, as described ion. VI, American Recovery Company A. Petition for Exclusion The American Recovery Company (ARC), located in Baltimore, Maryland currently operates a waste treatment facility which neutralizes acidic electroplating and spent pickle liquor wastes. ARC has petitioned the Agency (as required by 261.3(b)(2)) to exclude only the treatment residue produced by its treatment facil'*- for spent pickle liquor wastes formerly listed as EPA Hazardous Waste K063, sludge from lime treatment of spent pickle liquor from steel finishing operations.5 ARC claims that its treatment residue for the spent pickle liquor no longer meets the criteria for which the waste was originally listed, since it is non-corrosive and the hazardous constitutents of concern are present in an immobile form. ARC has submitted a detailed description of its treatment process, and EP toxicity test results for all toxic constituents specified in 261.24 of the regulations. ARC claims that the samples of residue obtained for analysis are representative of the range of spent pickle liquor wastes accepted for treatment at its facility. ARC uses a batch treatment process which involves the separate neutralization of hydrofluoric, nitric and sulfuric acid pickle liquor wastes, followed by the precipitation of metals as hydroxide salts, and the belt filter press dewatering of the sludge. The pH, which is raised to a level of 8.5 is corr'antly monitored in the reactor tank. The supernatent is monitored for chromium and lead prior to transfer to the settling tank. Additional liming is necessary ony if supernatent samples exceed effluent guideline discharge permit parameters. The dewatered sludge is stockpiled for three to five days prior to landfilling. Acidic wastes from electroplating processes are segregated and treated separately from spent pickle liquor wastes. The dewatered sludge from these wastes are currently manifested and disposed of at a Subtitle C landfill. ARC claims that there is no commingling of other wastes with the spent pickle liquor wastes processed at its facility. ARC has characterized its treatment process quantitively for each of the eight companies utilizing ARC's treatment services. ARC has assured the Agency that its treatment process will be monitored using EP toxicity tests to calibrate the treatment of any additional sources of pickle liquor. . Samples of dewatered sludge were obtained for EP toxicity analyses. Maximum chromium and lead levels in the waste extracts were 0.17 and <0.01 ppm. respectively. B, Agency Analysis and Action The constituents of concern in this waste, are chromium and lead. EP extracts from sludge samples analyzed by ARC show lead and chromium consistently well below the maximum EP toxicity levels. These low leachate levels indicate that the constituents are present essentially in an immoble form. A final pH range of 8.2 to 8.8 indicates that ARC's waste treatment system effectively neutralizes its acid wastes. The Agency therefore, has granted a temporary exclusion to ARC's facility in Baltimore, Maryland for its spent pickle liquor treatment residue, generated from the treatment process described in its petition. VII. Armco Incorporated A. Petition for Exclusion Armco Incorporated (Armco), involved in the manufacture of stainless and electrical (silicon and high carbon) sheet Bteel has petitioned the Agency to delist its sludge, formerly listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. K063, sludge from lime treatment of spent pickle liquor from Bteel finishing opera tions.* Armco has petitioned to exclude their waste because it does not meet the criteria for which it was listed. Armco uses the process of hydrofluoric, nitric, and sulfuric acid pickling, for the cleaning of silcon, carbon and stainless steel produced at its facility. Its waste treatment process for spent pickle liquor wastes involves lime neutralization, settling, and gravity and pressed filtration. They claim their sludge is environmentally stable and non-hazardous, and specifically that the sludge does not contain hazardous levels of chromium and lead, the constitutents of concern in the spent pickle liquor (waste K062). Armco submitted a detailed description of their sludge treatment system, and EP toxicity test results for chromium and lead. The samples were taken over a three month period which the petitioner claims represents the uniformity of constituent concentrations in the waste. EP toxicity tests revealed maximum chromium and lead levels in the waste extract of 0.17 and 0.19 ppm, respectively. B. Agency Analysis and Action The constituents of concern in this waste are chromium and lead. EP See footnote 1. See footnote 1. 000040576 CCR Federal RegUter / Vol. 45, No. 252 / Wednesday. December 31, 1980 / Notices 86547 extracts from sludge samples analyzed by Armco show chromium and lead, consistently well below the maximum EP toxicity levels. These low leachate levels indicate that the constituents are present essentially in an immobile form. A final pH of 8.5 indicates that Armco's waste treatment process effectively neutralizes its spent pickle liquor wastes. The Agency, therefore, has granted a temporary exclusion to Armco's facility In Butler, Pennsylvania for its treated spent pickle liquor, as described in its petition. It should be noted, however, that the Agency is concerned about the level of nickel in leachate analyses of the petitioner's stainless pickle liquor residues, even though nickel is not listed as a constitutent of concern. The Agency is presently analyzing its position on nickel concentration ranges in EP leachate. If after further analyses the Agency determines that these levels are of regulatory concern, nickel leachate concentrations may be considered prior to granting a final exclusion to Armco. VIII. Reynolds Metals Company The Reynolds Metals Company, (Reynolds), involved in the manufacture of one-piece aluminum cans, has petitioned the Agency to exolude its wastewater treatment sludge, presently listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019, wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum. Reynolds has petitioned to exclude its waste because it does not meet the criteria for which it was listed. Reynolds has Indicated that since its aluminum conversion coating processes do not use either chromium or cyanide, the constituents for which Hazardous Waste F019 is listed, its waste cannot contain hazardous levels of chromium or cyanide. Reynolds has submitted a description of its wastewater treatement process, formulation lists from its suppliers of chemicals and mixtures used in the chemical conversion process. EP toxicity test results for all toxic constituents specified in 1 261.24 of the regulations, and a constituent analysis of the sludge for cyanide. Reynold's treatment process of chemical conversion rinse wastes involves lime neutralization to a pH of 8.0-B.5, precipitation of metal hydroxides, and dewatering via pressure filtration. Formulation lists indicate that zirconium and fluoride compounds, nitric acid, hydrofluoric acid, hydrofluosilic acid, tannic acid, and phosphates are the major constituents of the conversion coatings used by Reynolds. None of the formulations contain chromium or cyanide. EP toxicity test results of dewatered sludge samples indicate a maximum chromium concentration of 0,04 ppm. Constitutent analysis of the sludge revealed a cyanide concentration pf 0.03 ppm. Reynolds has certified that the production process, chemical conversion process, formulation lists, waste treatment process. EP test data and the constituent analysis for cyanide are representative and do not vary at each of the following facility sites: Richmond, Virginia; Ewa Beach, Hawaii; Houston, Texas; Kansas City, Missouri; Guayama, Puerto Rico; Woodbridge, New Jersey; Salisbury. North Carolina; Hayward, California; Kent, Washington; Tampa, Florida; Torrance, California; and Middletown, New York. B. Agency Analysis and Action It is apparent from the formulation lists submitted that chromium and cyanide are not used in Reynold's chemical conversion process. EP toxicity deta indicate that chromium leachate concentrations are below the national primary interim drinking water standard. The cyanide concentrations found in the sludge are considered negligible and are well below the Public Health Service's suggested drinking water standard. The presence of these constituents in Reynolds wastes is probably a result of background levels and non-specific process contamination sources. Therefore, based on formulation lists, EP toxicity data, sludge constituent analysis and since Reynolds has certified that its production and treatment processes do not vary at any of its facilities, the Agency has granted temporary exclusions to the Reynolds Metals Company's facilities in Richmond, Virginia; Ewa Beach, Hawaii; Houston. Texas; Kansas City, Missouri: Guayama, Peurto Rico; Woodbridge, New Jersey, Salisbury. North Carolina; Hayward, California; Kent, Washington; Tampa, Florida: Torrance. California; and Middletown, New York, for its wastewater treatment sludge from the chemical conversion of aluminum, as described in its petition, from its listing under EPA Hazardous Waste No. Ftfl9. IX. Monroe Auto Equipment A. Petition for Exclusion The Monroe Auto Equipment Company (Monroe), involved in the manufacture of automotive ride control products (shock absorbers), has petitioned the Agency to exclude its treated sludge, presently listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006-- wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations except from the following processes: (1) Sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating on carbon steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-aluminum plating on carbon steel; (5) cleaning/stripping associated with tin, zinc and aluminum plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical etching and milling of aluminum. Monroe has petitioned to exclude its waste because it does not meet the criteria for which it was listed. The production process at Monroe's facility which generates the listed hazardous waste is hard chrome plating of carbon steel rods. The hazardous constituents of concern in this waste (F006) are cadmium, chromium, nickel and cyanideB. Monroe uses only chromium (chromic acid) in its plating operation, while cadmium, nickel and cyanide compounds are not used in any of its processes. Monroe claims that its treated wastewater sludge is nonhazardous due to the immobile and non toxic form of chromium and negligible levels of cadmium, nickel and cyanide in the sludge. Monroe has submitted a description of its wastewater treatment process, EP toxicity test results for cadmium, chromium, and nickel, and constituent analyses of the sludge for cyanide. Monroe's chromic acid rinse wastewater passes through a Heil chrome reduction unit which uses sulfur dioxide in sulfuric acid to reduce hexavalent chromium to the trivalent form. The reduced chromium solution then enters a Walker process clarifier along with alkaline cleaning and phosphating solutions, lime and ploymers. resulting in neutralization and precipitation of metal hydroxides. After settling, the sludge is pumped to a storage lagoon from where the sludge passes through vacuum filtration for dewatering, EP toxicity tests involving chromium, cadmium, and nickel produced maximum leachate levels of 0.75, <0.01, and 0.05 ppm, respectively. Constituent analyses of the sludge for total cyanide produced a maximum concentration of 3.9 ppm, while free cyanide was reported as <0.001 ppm. B. Agency Analysis and Action The constituents for which EPA Hazardous Waste No. F008 is listed are cadmium, chromium, nickel, and cyanide. Monroe has demonstrated that its hard chromium plating process does not use cadmium, nickel, and cyanide compounds. EP extracts show cadmium CCR 000040577 548 Federal Register /^Vol, 45, No. 252 / Wednesday, December 31, 1980 / Notices levels consistently below the interim primary drinking water standard. Nickel leachate concentrations are considered negligible as are free cyanide levels in the dewatered sludge, and are therefore not of regulatory concern. The low concentrations of cadmium, nickel, and cyanide are probably a result of unknown minor sources of contamination and background levels, rather than the direct use of these constituents in the plating process. Total chromium concentrations in the EP extract are consistently well below the maximum EP toxicity levels. These low leachate levels indicate that the constituents are present essentially in an immobile form. The Agency therefore, has granted a temporary exclusion to Monroe Auto Equipment's facility in Paragould, Arkansas, for the treated wastes generated by its hard chromium plating process as described in its petition, listed under EPA Hazardous Waste No. FOOT. Dated: December 24,1980. Eckhardt C. Beck, Assistant Administrator. |FR Doc. ao-4083JF,M 12-30-80. M5m| --' MU-MO COOC SMO-SO-M tor" 18052*: PH-FRC 1715-S] Connecticut; i&*u.i a of Specific Exemption for Use of Captafol on Peppers AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: EPA granted a specific exemption to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (hereafter referred to as the "Applicant") for use of captafol (Difolatan 4F) on 370 acres of peppers in Fairfield, Hartford, Litchfield, Middlesex, New London, New Haven, and Tolland Counties, Connecticut, to control pepper blight. The specific exemption was issued under the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. date: The specific exemption expired on October 31,1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Libby Welch. Registration Division (TS767), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. E-124, 401 M St. SW.. Washington, D.C. 20460 (202-426-0223). iUi^PLEMEMTARV INFORMATION: Pepper lighl is caused bv a fungus that lives in . j .. mi year to year and may be -ried on the seed. The infected plant commonly is girdled at the soil line, u: using a sudden wilting and death of the plant. According to the Applicant, interstate commerce. The Food and Drug the pepper industry could lose an Administration, U.S. Department of estimated $500,000 if the pepper blight Health and Human Services, was was not controlled. advised of this action. Zineb and copper oxychloride sulfate 11. The EPA was to be immediately (COCS) are registered for this use. The informed of any adverse effects Applicant stated that zineb and COCS resulting from the use of captafol in proved generally ineffective for control connection with this exemption. of this disease in tests and commercial 12. The Applicant was responsible for fields. assuring that all of the provisions of this Difolatan 4F is currently registered for specific exemption were met and must both ground ana (util.' application to a large variety of crops at rates greater than those requested for this use. Residues of captafol in or on peppers are not expected tD exceed 10 parts per million (ppm) as a result of this use. with a 4-day preharvest interval. This level has been fudged adequate to protect the public health. The proposed use was not submit a report summarizing the result of this program by April 1,1981. (Sec. 18, us amended, 92 Stat. 819 (7 U.S.C. 136)) Dated: December 18,1980. Robert V. Bro * n. Acting Deputy Assistant Administratorfor Pesticide Programs. expected to have an unreasonable | Fit Doc. 80-4OM0 Filed 12-30-00; 8: *5 am 1y A adverse effect on birds, mammals, or BILLING COOC 8M0-&-M aquatic organisms; nor should it have posed a hazard to endangered species j [OPTS-51159A;TSH-FRC 1716-5) and/or their habitats. After reviewing the application and Substituted Phenol, Reaction Product* other available information, EPA determined that the criteria for an exemption had been met. Accordingly, the Applicant was granted a specific exemption to use the pesticide noted above until October 31.1980. to the Notice; Extension of Review Period AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. extent and in the manner set forth in the application. The specific exemption was also subject to the following conditions: 1. The product Difolatan 4F (EPA Reg. No. 239-2211), manufactured by Chevron Chemical Company, might be applied. If an unregistered label was used, it was to have contained the identical '.Table precautions and restrictions which appear on the registered label. 2. Captafol was to be applied at a rate of 1.5 pounds a.i. per acre. 3. A maximum of 5 applications were to be made with a preharvest interval of 4 days. 4. A maximum of 370 acres were to be treated in the counties named above. 5. A maximum of 2.775 pounds of captafol were to be applied. 6. Applications were to be made with SUMMARY: EPA is extending the review period for a premanufacture notice (PMN), P80-267, under section 5(c) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The PMN review period for this substance commenced on September 29, 1980, and was scheduled to end on December 28.1980. The period will not expire on February 11,1981. The generic identity for the substance covered by the PMN is "substituted phenol, reaction products with sulfur chloride." The PMN described a chemical substance that would be manufactured for use as an additive for lubricant formulations. The submitter of the PMN claimed its identity to be confidential along with the specific chemical identity of the substance. air or ground equipment on a 10-day schedule. 7. Spray mixture volumes of 5 gallons of water per acre were to be applied by air equipment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Work, Chemical Control Division (TS-794), Office of Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street. SW., Washington, 8. Application was not to begin until D.C. 20460, (202-426-2601). conditions favorable for the disease SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: became established. 9. All applicable directions, Background restrictions, and precautions on the Under section 5 of TSCA any person EPA-registered product label were to be who intends to manufacture in or import followed. into the United States a new chemical 10. Peppers treated according to the substance for commercial purposes must above provisions should not have submit a premanufacture notice (PMN) residues of captafol in excess of 10 ppm. to EPA prior to commencement of Peppers with residues of captafol which manufacture or import. In general, do not exceed this level may enter section 5 provides that EPA must CCft 00004057a 954 Federal Register / Vol. 4ft. No. 2 / Monday, January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules "Sulfur in Coal'' regulation, N.J.A.C, 7:27-10.1 cl soq., which permitted u temporary increase to 3.5 percent, by weight, in Ihe allowable sulfur content of bituminous coal hunted nt existing steam or electric power generating facilities in Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland, and Ocean Counties. This use of this higher sulfur coal could be authorized by the State for a period not exceeding five years. This revision request was approved by EPA on December 15,1978 at 43 FR 58567 and had the effect of allowing the Atlantic City Electric Company to use bituminous coal with s sulfur content not to exceed 3.5-percent.by weight, nt units 1 and 2 of ils C.L. England Generating Station in Beasley's Point, Cape May County. The December 15,1978 EPA approval notice also dealt with a State request to temporarily relax the particulate matter emission limitation applicable to these two units of the B.L. England Generating Station. In order to allow more efficient particulate matter control equipment to be installed, as a purt of a Consent Judgment between the utility and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the emission limitation of 0.1 Ibs/million BTU applicable to these units was relaxed to 0.5 Ibs/million BTU until June 1,1981. A Federal requirement to this effect was promulgated at 40 CFR 52.1604(b) on December 15,1978 (43 FR 50567) and underwent minor correction on March 12,1979 (44 FR 13478). Today's notice deals yvUh this particulate matter control requirement on units 1 and 2 of the B.L. England plunt. II. Current Submittals On June 30,1980, the State of New Jersey submitted to EPA as a proposed revision to its SIP an Amended Consent Judgment which, if approved by EPA, would extend from June L.1981 until March 31, 1982 and June t, 1902, respectively, the dates by which units l and 2 of Ihe Atlantic City Electric Company's ILL. England Generating Station must comply with a 0.1 lbs/ million BTU particulate matter emission limitation. Today's proposed SIP revision has the effect of revising an earlier Consent Judgment and ihe Federal requirement which, as discussed, requires units 1 and 2 to comply by June 1. 1981. The Stale's SIP revision, including the fully excculed Amended Consent Judgment was submitted in accordance with all F.PA requirements under 40 CFR Purt 51. These include the need for u public hearing, which was held by the State cm March 7,1980. The Amended Consent Judgment between the Allantic City Electric Company and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJUEP), provides a revised compliance schedule for controlling particulate matter emissions from units 1 and 2 at the B. L. England Generating Station. The original Consent Judgment involved the installation of new electrostatic precipitators at units 1 and Z at the site of existing precipitators. This plan, if implemented, would have required the temporary termination of coal burning at these units and a return to oil burning while, the existing p|ecipiIiyiflir* *vB-c' . being dismantled and until the new precipitators were installed and became operational. This conversion to oil would have been necessary in order to avoid a large increase in particulate matter emissions. To obviate the need to burn oil, a new construction plan was prepared and forms the basis of the Amended Consent Judgment. This plan would stage the construction of the two new electrostatic precipitators, allowing unit l to use the new precipitator built for unit 2 while the existing inadequate precipitator at unit 1 was being dismantled. It is the use of a sequential construction schedule which results in the delay. It should be noted also, that at no time will the emissions of particulate matter exceed the previously approved emission limitation of 0.5 lbs/ million BTU. EPA notes that white the alteration of emission limitation requirements applicable to the Atlantic City Electric Company's B. L. England Station may not be approved by EPA as a compliance order, Section 110(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act allows b State to relax emission limitation requirements, as long as such relaxations do not jeopardize the attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards, Since both the primary and secondary standards for particulate matter are being met in the area m which the B. L. England Station is located, and the continued Imposition of the less stringent particulate emission limitation of U.5 Ibs/million BTU proposed in this rulemaking will not change the attainment status of the area, approval of such new emission limitations is not inconsistent with Section 110 of the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, the affected units are not subject to the provisions of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations since both units were emitting no more than 6.5 Ibs/million BTU of particulate matter prior to August 7, 1977. In keeping with the intent of the Amended Consent Judgment. EPA proposes to require the return to the more stringent emission limitation of 0.1 Ibs/million BTl.l at unit 1 by March 31,1982 and unit 2 by June 1, 1982. Based upon EPA's review of the Amended Consent Judgment, EPA proposes to approve the Stale's SIP revision submittal. However, EPA's proposed approval of this SIP revision does not make the compliance schedules contained in the Amended Consent Judgment federally enforceable and the Company's failure to comply with such incremental requirements prior to the final date at which the more stringent emission limitations must he met will not trigger noncompliance penalties under Section 120 of the Clean Air Act. Under Executive Order 12044. EPA is required to judge whether a regulation is "significant" and therefore subject to the procedural requirements of the Order or whether it may follow other specialized development procedures. I have reviewed this package and determined that it is a specialized regulation not subject to the procedural requirements of Executive Order d.2044. This notice is issued as required by Section 110 of the Clean Air Act. as amended, to advise the public that comments may be submitted as to whether the proposed revision to the New jersey State Implementation Plan should be approved or disapproved. The Administrator's decision regarding approval or disapproval of this proposed plan revision" will be based on whether it meets the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(a)--(k) of the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 51. (Sections 110. 301. Clean Air Act, amended (42 U.S.C. 7410. 7601)) Dated; December 22,1980. Charles S. Warren, Regional Administrator. Environmental Protection Agency. [FR Doc. SI-105 Filed l-li-fll; 8,45 am| BILLINO CODE tCM-Si-M _ . -- -------------------------- 40 CFR Part 123 ISW-3-FRL 1719-3] Maryland Application for interim Authorization, pnaae r. Harcaraoas Waste Management Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, Region III. action: Public Comment Period Extension. SUMMARY: EPA regulations to protect human health and the environment from the improper management of hazardous waste were published in the Federal CCR 000040579 TO Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules 955 Register on May 10.1980 (45 FR 33083). I'hr.M' rcguluUDUR include provisions for nitlioi i.m of State programs to .iperate in lieu of the Federal program. Today, EPA is announcing the availability for public review of the Maryland application for Phase 1 Interim Authorization, inviting public comment, and giving notice of a Public hearing to be held on the application. A previous notice was published in the December 4, 1980, Federal Register stating that public comment must be received by January 15,1981. That date has been changed to January 23,1981 to allow the public to review minor revisions to Maryland's application and organizational changes in Maryland's Emergency Regulations subsequently published in Maryland's Register on December 19,1980, The revised authorization application will be made available for public inspection at the EPA Public Hearing. A two-week period beyond the public hearing will allow opportunity for written Comments to be submitted to EPA. and should not substantially delay a final decision on Maryland's application. date: Comments on fhe Maryland Interim Authorization application must be received by January 23,1981. PUBLIC HcARMCK EPA will conduct a Public hat . , ir Miylan'i Interim Authorization a^p.u,.. ~ m. on Thursday, January 8,1981. EPA reserves the right to cancel the Public hearing if significant pubic interest in a hearing is not expressed. The State of Maryland will participate in any Puhlic hearing held by EPA on this subject. addresses: Copies of the Maryland Interim Authorization application are available at the following addresses for inspection and copying by the public: Dept, of Health A Mental Hygiene, Waste Management Enforcement Program, Znd Floor--O'Connor Building, 201 West Preston Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Office of Environmental Programs, Failinger Complex, Route 8 A Naves Crossroad, Cumberland, Maryland 21502 Wicomico County Health Dept.. 300 --...West Carrol Street. Salisbury, Maryland 21801 Public Information Reference Unit, Room 2922--EPA Library, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, (Waterside Mall), Washington, D.C. 20460 1' c. EPA, Region III. Library, 2nd Floor, ,! i Wp' .ut Slreets, Philadelphia, n*- uyK 19100 i r. .. .;r;ts Miouiu be scut to: ' i, Chief, Air, Toxics A . M.-termla Branch (3AH3Q), A, Region III, Oth A Walnut Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19100 The Public hearing will he held ut; Loch Haven Senior High School Auditorium, Cromwell Bridge Road A Cowpens Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21234. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Robert L. Allen, U.S. EPA, Air, Toxics A Hazardous Materials Division (3AH30), 6th A Walnut Streets nl Madelphia, Pennsylvania 19106. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the May 19, I960 Federal Register [45 FR 33063), the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated regulations, pursuant to Subtitle C of.the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (as amended), to protect human health and the environment from the improper management of hazardous waste. These regulations included provisions under which EPA can authorize qualified State hazardous waste management programs to operate in lieu of the Federal program. The regulations provide for a transitional stage in which qualified State programs oen be granted Interim Authorization. The Interim Authorization program is being implemented in two phases corresponding to the two stages in which the underlying Federal program will take effect. In order to qualify for issuanoe of Interim Authorization, the State hazardous waste program must: (1) Have been in existence prior to August 17,1980 and (2) submit evidence to ERA showing that i. : fasting State program is substantially equivalent to the Federal program. A full description of the requirements and procedures for State Interim Authorization Is included in 40 CFR Part 123 Subpart F, (45 FR 33479). As noted In the May 19, I960 Federal Register, copies of complete State submittals for Phase I Interim Authorization are to be made available for public Inspection and comment. In addition, a public hearing is to be held on the submittal, unless significant interest Is not expressed. A. R. Morris, Acting RationalAdministrator. |FV One. 1-lM Filsli 1-2-61. 6:46 um| biiumo cooe eso-a-ti ____! DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 41 CFR Part 9-15 CoetPrln iplee Applicable to Commercial Organizations agency: Department ofEnergy. ACTION: Proposed rule. summary: The proposed rule revises the Uupartment-of Energy cost principles for bid and proposal (BAP) cost and independent research and development (1RAD) cost as applicable to commercial organizations. The basis for the change is to provide for more uniformity with the IRAD concepts introduced by the Cost Accounting Standards Board, the IRAD/BAP rules followed by the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and DOE management of IRAD/BAP costs allocable to DOE contracts. DATE: Comments ms:t be refceived on or before February 4, If,81. ADDRESS: Comments snould be addressed to the Department of Energy, Procurement Policy Division (PR-222), Mail Stop IJ-009, Forrestai Building, Washington, DC 20585. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. G. L. Allen, Policy and Procedures Division (PR-222), Procurement and Assistance Management Directorate (202) 252-8179. Robert L. Forst, Attorney, Office of Assistant General Counsel for Procurement and Finanaial Incentives (GS-44), Office of the General Counsel (202) 252-1526. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background IL Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 111. Public Comments 1. Background Under Section 644 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") (Pub. L. 95-91, 91 Stat. 505. 41 U.S.C. 7254), the Secretary of the Department is authorized to prescribe such procedural rules and regulations as he may deem necessary or appropriate to effectuate the functions vested in him. Accordingly, the Department of Energy Procurement Regulations (DOE-PR) were promulgated with an effective date of June 30,1979 (see 44 FR 34424), The proposed rule revises those DOE-PR sections applicable to commercial cost principles for bid and proposal and independent research and development costs. Significant changes included in the proposed rule: (1) Deleting the requirement for development cost to be allocated over its related line of business or field of research and providing for allocation to all business. (2) Providing a formula for determining reasonable bid and proposal expense in lieu of a historical arithmetic average. CC 004058o Federal Register / Vol. 4fl, No. 4 / Wednesday. January 7, 1981 / Rules and Regulations 1727 In view of the above, the Director is amending 27 CFR Part 4 as follows: Paragraph 1. By amending the table of sections by removing $ 4.74, and by revising the title of 4,46 to read "Certificate of nonstandard of fill," As amended, the table of sections reads as follows: PART 4--LABELING AND ADVERTISING OF WINE A*** ^ Subpart E--Requirements for Withdrawal of Wine From Customs Custody * a * SfL. 4.4o Certificate of nonstandard fill. *T ** * Subpart H--Standards of Fill for Wine 4 >* a*a 4,74 [Reserved I Paragraph 2. By amending 4.37 by (1) adding 50 milliliters (1.7 fl. oz.) to the list of standard metric sizes in paragraph (b)(1); by (2) deleting in paragraphs (a), (a)(2), and (b) the references to wine buttled according to the U.S, standards of fill under-S 4.72 and deleting the references to the mandatory bottling date: and by f3) removing paragraph (c) as obsolete and redesignating paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) os paragraphs (o), (d), and (e), respectively. As amended, | 4,37 reads as follows: 4.37 Net contents. (a) Statement of net contents. The net contents pf wine fur which a standard of fill is prescribed in 4.73 shall be stated in the same manner and form as sot forth in the standard of fill. The net content of wine for which no standard of fill is prescribed in $ 4.73 shall be stated in the metric system of measure as follows: (1) * * *' (2) If less than one liter, net contents shall be stated in milliliters (ml). (b) Statement of U.S. equivalent net contents. When net contents of wine are stated in metric measure, the equivalent volume in U.S. measure may also be shown. If shown, the U.S. equivalent volume will be shown as follows: (Tj jFor the metric standards of fill; 3 liters (101 fl. oz.): 1.5 liters (50,7 fl. oz.); 1 liter (33.6 fl. oz.): 750 ml (25.4 fl. oz.): 373 ml (12.7 fl. oz.): 187 ml (6.3 fl. oz.): 100 ml (3.4 fl, oz.): and 50 ml (1.7 fl. oz ). wp*** (c) Net contents market in bottle. (d) Tolerances. * ' * (e) Unreasonable shortages. * * * Paragraph 3. By amending 4.46 by (l)removing existing paragraph (b) which refers to standard metric cases: (2) redesignating the remaining paragraphs; and (3) revising the section title. As revised, 4.46 reads as follows: (c) Tolerances. * * * 4.74 [Removed! Paragraph 7. By removing 3 4.74, Bottles per shipping case. Signed: November 14,1980. 4.46 Certificate of nonettmtaurd flH. A person may import wine in containers not conforming to the metric standards of fill prescribed at 4.73 if the wine is-- (a) Accompanied by a Statement signed by a duly authorized official of the appropriate foreign country, stating that the wine was bottled or packed before January 1,187V: (b) Being withdrawn from a Customs bonded warehouse into which it was entered before January 1.1879: or (c) Exempt from the standard of fill requirements as pravidu<^by 4.70(b)(1) or (2), Paragraph 4. By amending 8 4.70 by removing the reference to 4:74 where it appears in paragraphs (b) and (c). The amended portions of 5 4.70 read as follows: 4.70 Application. * *4 A * G. R. Dickerson, Director. Approved: December 15,1980. Richard |. Davie, Assistant Secretary (Enforcement and Operations). {KB 0(,, SI -40ft K,l(,ri 1-6-01 S 15 jm| BILLINO COO 4810-31-M ) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 123 (Subpart F) [SW-4-FRL 1716-61 Mississippi's Application for Phase l Intmrim AtitnnriVaUnn Mtafp Hazardous Waste Management Prppram AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. ACTION: Notice of Final Determination. (b) Sections 4.70-4.73 do not apply to-- * ** * * (c) Section 4.73 does not apply to wine domestically bottled or packed, either in or out of customs custody, before January 1,1979, if the wine, was boltled or packed, according to the standards of fill prescribed by 3 4.72. Paragraph 5. By amending $ 4.72.by revising paragraph (c) to state that the section does not apply after December 31,1976, As amended, 4.72 reads as follows: 84,7$ Standards of fIB. - * * *. * . (c) This section does not apply after December 31,1978. Paragraph 6. By amending $ 4.73 by adding 50 milliliters to the standards of- fill m paragraph (a), and by removing paragraphs (d) and (e). As amended. 4.73 reads as follows: 4.73 Metric standards of fill. (a) Authorized standards offill. The standards of fill for wine are the following: ., 3 liters 1.5 titers 1 liter 750 milliliters 375 milliliters 187 milliliters 100 milliliters SO miiiiltters (b) Sizes larger than 3 liters. *. * * SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to announce the final determination that has been made in regard to an application for Phase I Interim Authorization submitted by the State of Mississippi. The Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed Mississippi's Application for Interim Authorization and has determined that Mississippi's Hazardous Waste Program is substanUallytmulvalent to the Federal program as defined by regulations pTOnrtrtgmmf Uhder the Resource Conservatlon and Recovery Act of 1976 fRCRAl. The State of Mississippi is. hereby granted interim authorization to operate the State program in lieu ol Subtitle C hazardous waste management program (Phase fjln accordance with Section 3006(c) of RCRA and implementing regulations found in 40 CFR Subpart F. EFFECTIVE DATE: Interim Authorization, Phase I, for Mississippi shall become effective on January 7,1981. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Sullivan, Residuals Management Branch, U.S. EPA, Region IV, 345 Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30365, Telephone (404) 801-3936. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the May 19.1900, Federal Register (45 FR 33003), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated regulations, pursuant to Subtitle C of the R^dtfurce Conservation and RecoverjrAct of 1976 CCR 000040581 1728 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 4 /. Wednesday.,, January 7, 1981 / Rules and Regulations - (RCRA), to protect human health and the environment from the,improper management of hazardous waste#. The Act (RCRA) includes provisions whereby a State agency may be authorized by EPA to administer the hazardous waste program in that Slate in lieu of a Federally administered ' program. For a State program to receive final authorization, its hazardous waste program must be fully equivalent to and consistent with the Federal program under RCRA. In order to expedite the authorization of State programs, RCRA allows EPA to grant a State agency Interim Authorization if its program is substantially equivalent to the Federal program. During Interim Authorization, a State can make whatever legislative or regulatory changes that may be needed for the Stale's hazardous waste program to become fully equivalent to the Federal program. The Interim Authorization program will be Implemented in two phases corresponding to the two stages in which the underlying Federal program will take effect. The State of Mississippi submitted its draft application farHte** I Interim Authorization on August 12,1980. After detailed review, EP^idapliiied several ureas of major concern end transmitted commur ts to the State for its U'.i, `t The State subsequently made revisions to its Application for Phase 1 Interim Authorization In order to clarify those aspects of its program which had been questioned during tbs EPA review. On September 26.1980, Mississippi submitted to EPA a Final Application for Phase I Interim Authorization under RCRA, An EPA review team consisting of both Headquarters and Regional Office personnel mudo a detailed analysis of Mississippi's hazardous waste management program. The following issuas wepgftrtaeiHtyjtire :* review team. (a) The Attorney General must demonsirate that Slate law provides autlunity fur officers to. enter hazardous waste storage facilities or transporters. (h) The Attorney General needs to expand remarks explaining its-authority to immediately restrain, by Administrative Order or by suit in State court, any person from engaging in activity which is endangering or causing damage to public health or the environment (r.) The State of Mississippi must show authority to sue in courts bf cooipetent jurisdiction to enjoin any threatened or continuing violation of any program requirement. (J| The Z' tie iev General'* Statement must ;.t;,n iy explain State program provisions for ,, >: !:-i participation in State administrative or court enforcement actions. To resolve these issues the State made revisions maitUy in the Attorney General's Statement and also minor changes In the MOA and Program Description. (a) The Attorney General cited authority granting the Baaed of Health power to make regulations for entry and inspection substantially equivalent to Federal entry and inspection authority. (bl The Attorney General's Statement was amt.i.tj to Include further citations of State statutes, regulations and court decisions authorizing orders to immediately restrain certain activities. jc) The Attorney General cited further State statutes supporting the State's ability to sue in ooarta. Some of the arguments regarding immediate restraint authority were also applicable to this authority. The State has also shown through jla Authorization Plan, a firm commitment to seek dear statutory authority to seek injunctions within six months, (dj The State amended the Program Description, MOA and Attorney General's Statement to provide tor public participation as required to 40 CFR 123.128. Responsiveness Summary: As noticed In the Federal Register on October 3, 1980 (45 FR 65832), EPA gave the public until November 11.1980, to comment on the State's application. EPA also held a public hearing in Jackson. Mississippi, on November 5.1980. The oral comments received at the public hearing and written comments submitted directly to EPA are summarized below along with EPA'b responses. Five individuals spoke at the public hearing and three written comments were received. Their comments and EPA'b responses are presented below: Comment: Three speakers and two letters supported Mississippi's application. Response: No EPA response is required. Comment: At the November 5 hearing, a Mississippi State senator stated ills willingness to introduce whatever legislation is necesmry and required to see that this program, is properly staffed and funded. Response: No EPA response is required. Comment: A speaker ftdt that using an EPA waste code and a DOT waste description was an undue Federal burden on generators who must manifest their waste. Response: EPA does not require a specific manifest form but does require certain information on the manifest. This requirement at 40 CFR 262.21 does include the DOT description of wastes but does not require the EPA waste code. Each State may require a manifest form as they deem nocessmy for their program. Comment: One commenter complained that the application was voluminous and expensive to copy. Response: A targe part of the State's application is the State's laws and regulations. Copies of regulations should be available for distribution. The program description, if read alone, should give the reader a good understanding of how the State plans to run its hazardous waste management program. Comment: One speaker argued that EPA's response to Mississippi's application should have been available for public comment. Response: The comments EPA sent to the State are not part of the State's application and were not required to be available at the public hearing. Th State normally responds to these comments by amending its application. This response should be available to the public. Comment: One commenter had several problems with the State enforcement program. One complaint was the lack of citizen participation in violation hearings. Another complaint was the perceived lack of authority over outof-state waste. Response: Mississippi has agreed to giv public notioe on any proposed settlement of a State enforcement action. The State alao lists citizen participation as an area where future . legislation is planned. The Slate does have authority over out-of-state wastes as soon as they enter the State. No State can enforce any regulations beyond its State boundary, Comments; Two commenters brought ui the fact that State law requires State regulations be "equivalent to" the Federal regulations. One speaker thought Slate regulations must be "as stringent as" Federal regulations according to State Law. Another speaker argued that the State was no allowed enough freedom in tailoring their regulations to suit the particular needs of the State. Response: The Interim Authorization package contains amendments to the State Law that are in effect and require regulations "be equivalent to' Federal regulations. Mississippi law directs the Board of Health to pass regulation* so that the State can obtain Interim Authorization as requested by the-Govern or. Although the State may obtain Interim Authorization by having a program "substantially equivalent," the-State program must be "equivalent" before the State may receive final Authorization. EPA must require a certain amount ol consistency to ensure that hazardous CCR 0000^0582 Federal Register / Vol, 48, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 1981 / Rules and Regulations 1729 waste will be properly managed in all States (Section 3006, RCRA). The definition and listings of wastes must be consistent among States so that interstate shipments will be regulated from cradle to grave, Even with nearly identical regulations, the State will have considerable freedom to tailor their program to meet the needs of the State. Comments: A commenter was concerned about possible plans to convert a class A landfill to a hazardous waste disposal site and also concerned about the possible move of the Solid Waste Management Division to the Department of Natural Resources. Response; The State would have to treat any landfill conversion just as they would any disposal site. If the conversion is made after November 19,1980, the facility will not qualify for Interim Status to operate prior to receiving a RCRA permit. The State will not be authorized to issue a RCRA permit until the State receives Phase U Interim or Final Authorization. If the State decides to move the Division of SoBd Waste Management, during Interim Authorization, a new MOA would have to be signed with EPA. At that lime, EPA will decide whether the State program continues to be substantially equivalent. If the program is no longer substantially equivalent, EPA would withdrawthe program. CommenO A commenter felt the State had no power otheT than court injunction to restrain illegal activities. Response: The State Board of Health may restrain illegal activities through administrative orders. (Mississippi regulation 402.11--1(h)) Comment: One commenter felt that the frequency of inspections by the State was not enough and that the State required 90 days notice before inspection/ ., ' Response: The State meets EPA's requirements for inspection frequency and inspections may occur at any time and especially in response to complaints. Comment: One commenter responded to three issues EPA had raised Hfter reviewing the Mississippi application, Tho commenter argued that the three points had been addressed sufficiently by the Mississippi Attorney General. The three issues ure: entry and inspection authority; authority to sue to enjoin. any threatened or continuing program violations; and ability to immediately restrain. Response: On November 7,1980, the Mississippi Assistant Attorney General responded to the three issues raised by EPA. The response included additional evidence to support previous determinations in the Attorney General's Statement. Comment: A commenter felt that EPA should expedite authorization of the State program since "it if a simple fact that EPA doe# not have die finances nor the resources to administer or enforce this program in the various States by November 19th or during a subsequent interim period of any length of time at all." Response: EPA will decide whether to give Mississippi Interim Authorization solely on the merits of the State's application. On November,19,1980, EPA will run the hazardous waste program in any State that ha# not received Interim Authorization. The goal of Interim Authorization is to avoid duplication of Federal end State requirements by allowing qualified State programs to operate in lieu of the Federal program. Comment: One commenter'questioned whether the State's application is sufficient to safeguard residents near proposed disposal sites. Response: The State has adopted regulations substantially equivalent to the Federal Interim Status regulations (40 CFR 285] for disposal site#. These regulations and the final regulations (40 CFR 284) are designed to ensure the safety of residents near disposal sites. Comment: One commenter questioned the future enforcement performance of the State based on its past record. Response: The State passed regulations which became effective November 19, 1980, and until that date, there has - been no record of the Slate enforcing , hazardous waste regulations. The State could have enforced utlder the imminent hazard prOviif&dibf its law but neither the State nor EPA has determined that an imminent hazard existed in Mississippi. ' Comment: A speaker felt that counties were not given sufficient voice th Siting or operation of facilities. One commenter noted the "maximum involvement of all interested parties" in the development of the State program. Response: Besides the guarantees of public participation in permitting, where State law permitB, counties may affect siting through local zoning ordinances. The State Will not issue full RCRA.permits to existing facilities or permit new facilities under Phase 1 Interim Authorization. Comment: A commenter felt .that the State should extend the period of post-closure care for sites-beyond the 30 year required-period. Response: The State regulations, as do the Federal, allow anyone to request an extension of post-closure care beyond the required 30 years, These petitions will be considered at the time the post-closure plan is submitted and at five year intervals after the completion of closure. (Mississippi Regulations 402.7-117(d)) Comment; A commenter was concerned about the statewide and local enforcement of transportation standards. Response: The State has included in its application a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States Department of Transportation and the Mississippi Public Service Commission. These two MOU's explain how the State plans to accomplish an equitable statewide enforcement of hazardous waste transportation regulations. The State's laws, regulations, and enforcement program must be judged substantially equivalent before the State is granted Interim Authorization. If, during Interim Authorization, the program is not enforced, EPA may withdraw Interim Authorization or withhold Final Authorization. Local governments with authority to inspect transporters can inspect transporters and. if violations are discovered, they may submit complaints to the State for enforcement. Comment: Concern was voiced over whether the State could help companies locate disposal sites while judging their applications in an unbiased manner. Response: Siting of hazardous waste management facilities is one of the most difficult program elements for any State. The more involvement the State has in siting of new facilities, the more likely the facility will be designed to suit the particular needs of the State, A major part of the State's responsibility topermitting will be to make sure a facility ' application sufficiently describes a - site and its operation. Comment: A commenter states that a ~ MOU should be negotiated with the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency. Response: The State has furnished a 24- ho,ur telephone number f6r State emergency response to the Memorandum of Agreement with the EPA. The State will be responsible for seeing that local agencies are informed and involved in emergency responses as required by State law. In the case of facilities, the contingency plan should contain local emergency response unit telephone tbecose ol totaMtoto'trafl^poVfdnoh, CCR 000040583 1730 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 1981 / Rules and Regulations Iho transporter may have to rely on a national response number. Intrastate transporters will lie assured of having the proper State response number. Comment: One commenter questioned whether Mississippi is legally entitled to Interim Authorization based on the criteria that a State has to have an (iffcetive'Stute hazardous waste program in existence as of August 17. 1980, Response: EPA interprets the word "program" as used above to mean enabling legislation only. (See Federal Register dated May 19,1900, page 33387.) In addition, all aspects of the State program must be "substantially equivalent" to the Federal, program by the time Interim Authorization is actually granted. Mississippi is in compliance with these requirements in that it had enacted enabling legislation before August 17,1980, and its program will be substantially equivalent to the Federal program on November 19,1980, when its regulations become effective. Comment One com (neuter expressed concern over the regulations governing the transportation of hazard*" "'astes. In particular, hr was concerned that, the EPA. U.S. Dei 'erf >f'TY''.i8po'tatloii,and StatoreguuiuL.... a..dorm so as to minimise the difficulties that interstate transporters would fare, Tho c.ommenter requested that States which receive Interim Authorization be required to comply with ageneral provision which would allow that a carrier who was in compliance with the Federal requirements would be deemed to be in compliance with State requirements a* welt Finally, with regard to any subsequent change in the rules affecting rail carriers, the commenter requested that the State be required to amend its regulations acccfdiqgjljf. Response: EPA shares the commentr r's concerns regarding the interstate movement of hazardous wastes. Mississippi's regulations require transporters in any mode to comply with standards identical to the Federal standards. Because the State program is-expected to operate "in lieu of the Federal program, EPA cannot require the State to set aside ils rules without due process. However, the State is required to modify its regulations within one year f '* dale of oromulgaifon {see 48 CFR f 1 <%,), unless a statutory change is Two year, will be allowed for ' ..:ctray changes. , ,ui the Federal regulations allow S . i" h,.\:: more stringent standards than Fcoeral standards for transporters, compliance with Federal standards cannot necessarily assure compliance with those State standards which are more stringent. However, a State's transportation requirements must not place an undue burden so as lo interfere with interstate commerce. Dated: December 30, 1900, Rebecca W. Ham'-'" Regional Adminiajmtor. |l'ft Cue -ili-.l 1-fr-ttt: 8:45 nm| BILLING CODE 64*0-30-U DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Secretary 41 CFR Part 14-2 Protests Against Awards AGENCY: Department of the Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Interior Procurement Regulations are hereby revised to transfer the responsibility for handling bid protests filed in the General Accounting Office. The responsible office is hereby changed from the Office of Acquisition and Property Management to the Office of the Solicitor. This action is taken pursuant to recommendations followings departmental review of legal activities within the Office of the Secretary and its Bureaus and Offices. Dcte: I- ffnetive date of the revision shall be January 7,1981. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Kbits, Division of Acquisition and Grants, Office of Acquisition and Property Management. Department of the Interior, (202) 343-5914. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The primary author of this rule is Peter Rolls, Division1,of A^uiwtfonffd,Grant*. , Office of Acquisition ana Property Management, Department of the Interior, 18th & C Streets, N.W., Washington, D C. 2024th telephone (202) 343-6431. Waiver: It is the general policy of foe Department of the Interior to allow time for interested parties to participate in the rulemaking process. However, the amendments contained herein are entirely administrative in nature and public participation would same no useful purpose. Therefore, the public rulemaking process is waived in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553. Impact: The Department of the Interior has determined that this document is not a significant rule and does nOfcrequire a regulatory analysis under Ejfocotive Order 12044 and 43 CFR Chapter 14. Accordingly, 41 CFR Chapter 14 is amended as stated below, pursuant iq the authorily of the Secretary of the Interior contained in Section 205(c}. 63 Slat. 390; 40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 5 U.S.C. 301. Dated: December 24. 1980. William L. Kendig, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior, PART 14-2--PROCUREMENT BY FORMAL ADVERTISING Subpart 14-2.4--Opening of Bids and Award of Contract 5 14-2.407-8 is amended by deleting paragraphs (b) through (h) and'inserting the following: 14-2.407-8 Protests against award. * +*** (b) Responsibility. The Office of the Solicitor shall be responsible for handling bid protests filed in the General Accounting Office. All communications relative to protests at the GAO shall be coordinated with Ihe Assistant Solicitor for Procurement. (c) Notice of Protest Upon being advised by the GAO of the receipt of a protest the Office of the Solicitor will inform the appropriate procuring activity which will immediately notify the contracting officer. The contracting officer shall then promptly notify all interested parties by telephone that a protest has been filed with the GAO. A written record of such telephonic notices shall be placed in the procurement file. After receiving a copy of the protest from GAO and itsTequoat for an administrative report the Office of the Solicitor will promptly furnish the same to the procuring activity which shall in turn promptly transmit copies to the contracting officer and request a written report. The contracting officer shall promptly transmit'by letter a copy of the protest to all interested parties. Copies of such cover letters shall be sent concurrently to the Assistant Solicitor for Procurement. Cover letters should contain the advice contained in S 1-2.407-8(a)(3) of this title, including instructions that any comments submitted to GAO should also be submitted to the contracting officer and the Assistant Solicitor foi Procurement, (d} Submission of report. (1) All personnel shall handle protests on a priority basis. Within 2S working days after receipt by the Office of the Solicitor of the GAO's request for an administrative report, such report or a statement setting forth the reasons for delay and the expected date of submission shall be submitted to the GAO. The procuring activity will have CCR oo<Kosa M }' - * Enforcement FIRST SUIT FILED ALLEGING VIOLATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE INTERIM STANDARDS The Justice Department Dec. 31 filed suit to force cleanup of a hazardous waste storage facility in Seattle, Wash., mak ing it the first lawsuit alleging violation of the new interim status standards for hazardous waste facilities under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Art The suit (L .S. r Ronald S ifjlloemp Carp,, Paccar Inc., Chemical Processor*. Inc . I'man Pacific Railroad, and the UV.sf I-Cuitc. No C80-1342M' alleges that "The waste is stored in overcrowded fashion and in leaking, damaged, open, or deteriorating containers threatening fire, explosion, the i dense of highly poisonous gas, and long-term air and soil contamination." However, Chemical Processors, Inc and the Seattle Fire Department say 80 of the 88 originally cited violations have been corrected already, and all immediately hazardous situations have been eliminated. The suit, filed in the (J.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, represents the first case that alleges violation of the interim status standards for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities under RCRA. Justice claims the wastes are stored too close to the proper ty line and in violation of the 50-foot setback requirements for ignitable or reactive wastes in the interim status stan dards. The Justice Department asked for the maximum civil penalties of $25,000 per day of violation since Nov, 19, the day the interim status standards took effect. The $25,000 per day fine is authorized by the new amendments to RCRA, which were approved last October (Current Developments, Oct. 24, 1980, p. 926) The lawsuit also includes claims under the endangerment provisions of Section 7003 of RCRA and Section 303 of the Clean Air Act. Justice is seeking injunctive relief to force immediate cleanup of the site. The Chemical Processors (Chempro) site, run by West, is located approximately 1.5 miles from the Seattle downtown area, about a quarter of a mile from Interstate 5, and about one block from a residential neighborhood According to Carl Strass, the attorney on the case in the Justice Department's hazardous waste section, the site is used to store a variety of dangerous chlorinated hydrocarbons, solvents, acids, and cyanide. The facility reprocesses spent solvents and re-ships them to buyers, and has a cyanide destruction process, Strass told BNA on Jan. 7. Strass said the defendants include Boeing ,,nd Paccar, both hazardous waste generators and the principle users of the site; Union Pacific Railroad, in its capacity as landowner of the site; West as one of the principal stockholders of the site; and Chempro, the firm using the site Strass told BNA the suit seeks to stop Boeing and Paccer from sending any additional wastes to the site until it is cleaned up, and to pre vent West and Chempro from accepting wastes from anyone except minor generators until the site is cleaned up. Plant Closure Feaiad Seattle Fire Marshal Bob Hansen told BNA that closure of the solvent reclamation plant might tern;,' some of Chem pro`s potential customers to dispose oi the;: wastes illegally, into Puget Sound or the Seattle sewer system. I don't want to see them closed, " Hansen complained. The Boeing Com pany and other large users of the facility can afford to ship wastes to California for disposal, but "that puts it on the highways," he added. Hansen said fire department inspec tors had found 20,000 drums on the site, some of which were empty and containing hazardous vapors Since then, Chem pro has been reducing the number of drums b> consolidating wastes and removing damaged drums and has stopped processing waste cyanide, Hansen noted. An earlier consent decree, negotiated by Chempro, the fire department. Environmental Protection Agency Region X, and the Seattle U.S. attorney's ofice was acceptable to all parties locally but was turned down by Justice Department attorneys in Washington, D.C., according to Clark and Hansen. The consent decree would have called for remedy ing violations of the local fire code and the RCRA standards within several months. Justice's Strass, however, refused to discuss the settlement negotiations with BNA. A hearing on the lawsuit has been set for Jan. 16 in the Seattle U.S. District Court. CCR 000040385 U! Federal Register / Vol. 46. No- 1G / Monday, January 26, 1981 I Rules and Regulations_______ 8395 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [aO CFR Parts 262, 264, and 265 {SWH-FRC 1725-5] f Hazardous Waste Management V System; Standards Applicable to 'Generators of Hazardous Waste and / Standards Applicable to Owners and i Operators of Hazardous Waste ! Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (-Facilities AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. action: Suspension of annual report requirement. among other things, a manifest system for tracking wastes and certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements. As a part of the regulations, generators of hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 262.41, 45 FR 33144) and owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (see 40 CFR 264.75, 45 FR 33227 and 40 CFR 265.75, 45 FR 33239) are required to prepare an annual report on their activities and submit it to the EPA Regional Administrator by March 1 of the following year. Annual report forms are provided in the appendices to the appropriate parts of the regulations (see 45 FR 33145, 45 FR 33254). II. Reason for Amendments SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EEA) is today revising its, hazardous waste regulations to suspend entirely the annual report requirement foTcalendar year 1980Torhazaidous waste generators and owners and operators ofhazardous waste treatment, storage,"and"disposal facilities. EPA is taking this action because the Agency sies little practical value in requiring the regulated community to file the annual report for 1980 at a time when, because of the tremendous workload at the beginning of the hazardous waste regulatory program, the Agency will not be able to make good use of the report data. This action will relieve the regulated community of the annual reporting requirement contained in the regulations for calendar year 1980 and will also allow both EPA and the regulated community ample time in which to prepare for submission of the 1981 annual report. date: Effective Date: January 26.1981. EPA is suspending the annual report requirements for 1980 for one major reason. The Agency will not be prepared by March 1 of this year to adequately collate, analyze, and make use of the data from these reports, given the heavy workload the Agency is currently experiencing in the initial phase of this regulatory program. This workload ii eludes, among other things, processing some 14,700 Part A applications for permits, amending and finalizing existing Phase I regulations, and promulgating Phase II regulations. The Agency, therefore, believes that requiring the regulated community to bear the significant cost of reporting when the Agency cannot make good use of the reports is clearly unwarranted. Furthermore, EPA believes that today's action is fully consistent with the statutory reporting requirements contained in RCRA. Sections 3002(6) and 3004(2) both give the Administrator broad discretion in setting reporting FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: requirements for generators and owners Jeffrey Goodman, Director, Analysis and operators of hazardous waste Branch, Office of Management, facilities. In EPA's opinion, today's Information and Analysis Division suspension of the 1980 annual report (WH-562), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.. requirement, for the reason cited above, Washington. D.C. 20460, (202J 755-9180. js within that administrative discretion. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: It should be noted that today's action I. Introduction does not in any way relieve the regulated community of its Pursuant to Subtitle C of the Solid recordkeeping (i.e,, manifests, operating Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the records) and other reporting Resource Conservation and Recovery responsibilities, as contained in the Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA), 42 hazardous waste regulations. In fact, U.S.C. 6901 et seq., EPA promulgated EPA intends to examine these 1980 regulations on May 19,1980, establishing records during site inspections in the a comprehensive regulatory program for coming year. Also, today's action does the management and control of not in any way modify the annual hazardous wastes (see 40 CFR Parts reporting requirements for calendar year 260-265 and 122-124, 45 FR 33066). 1981. These regulations, which became effective on November 19,1980, III. Suspension Establish standards for hazardous waste To suspend the annual report generators, transporters, and treatment, requirement for 1980 EPA is today ^storage and disposal facilities, including, taking the following actions: (1) 40 CFR 262.41 is being suspended for calendar year 1980. (2) 40 CFR 264.75 is being suspended for calendar year 1980. (3) 40 CFR 265.75 is being suspended for calendar year 1980. As indicated above, these actions do not suspend the other reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in the regulations. For hazardous waste generators the requirements that remain in effect include the recordkeeping, exception reporting, and additional reporting requirements set out in Subpart D of Part 262. For treatment, storage, and disposal facilities the requirements that remain in effect include the manifest system, operating record, disposition of records, unmanifested waste reporting, and additional reporting requirements contained in Subpart E of Parts 264 and 265. Because these requirements remain in effect during this six-week period, the specified records must be maintained. IV. Effective Date EPA is promulgating this suspension in final form with an effective date of January 26.1981. The Agency has determined under Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), that there is good cause for promulgating this suspension without prior notice and comment. The current hazardous waste regulations require annual reports for 1980. imposing a burden on the regulated community for which EPA sees little practical value. Having decided to suspend the annual report requirement for 1980, EPA believes it is essential to take this action before the regulated community will have to begin preparing and submitting the annual report. Section 3010(b) of RCRA requires that revisions to the hazardous waste regulations take effect six months after their promulgation. The purpose of this statutory requirement is to allow the regulated community sufficient lead time to prepare to comply with major new regulatory requirements- Delaying the effective date of his action which reduces existing regulatory requirements is not consistent with carrying out this objective. Furthermore, the Agency believes that an effective date six months after promulgation would defeat the very purpose of the action. EPA is therefore making the suspension effective on January 26.1981. Dated: lanuary 19. 1981. Douglas M. Costle, Administrator. IPR Due. 81-IMO Filed 1-23-ai. 8 am| BILLING CODE SSS0-30-U CCR 0000*0586