80 FR 60052 - Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Direct Final Rule
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 192 (October 5, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 192 (October 5, 2015)
| Page Range | 60052-60055 | |
| FR Document | 2015-24459 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 192 (Monday, October 5, 2015)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 60052-60055] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-24459] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 261 [EPA-R07-RCRA-2014-0452; FRL-9934-78-Region 7] Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Direct Final Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to revise delisting levels for the hazardous waste exclusion granted to John Deere Des Moines Works (John Deere) of Deere & Company, in Ankeny, Iowa to exclude or ``delist'' up to 600 tons per calendar year of F006/F019 wastewater treatment sludge. The wastewater treatment sludge is a filter cake generated by John Deere's Ankeny, Iowa, facility wastewater treatment system was conditionally excluded from the list of hazardous wastes on November 25, 2014. This direct final rule responds to a request submitted by John Deere to increase certain delisting levels and eliminate certain delisting levels for the excluded waste. After careful analysis and use of the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS), EPA has concluded the request may be granted. DATES: This direct final rule is effective on December 4, 2015, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 4, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R07-RCRA-2014-0452. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in by contacting the further information contact below. The public may copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the first 100 pages and at a cost of $0.15 per page for additional copies. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Herstowski, Waste Remediation and Permits Branch, Air and Waste Management Division, EPA Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219; telephone number (913) 551- 7631; email address: herstowski.ken@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized as follows: I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule? II. Does this action apply to me? III. Background A. What is a delisting petition? B. How did EPA act on John Deere's delisting petition? C. What are the changes John Deere is requesting? D. How did EPA evaluate John Deere's request? E. How does this final rule affect states? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule? The EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comment. This action narrowly changes the delisting levels for the F006/F019 wastewater treatment sludge generated at the John Deere Des Moines facility in Ankeny, Iowa. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. In that case, we may issue a proposed rule to propose the changes and would address public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. II. Does this action apply to me? This action only applies to the F006/F019 wastewater treatment sludge generated at the John Deere Des Moines facility in Ankeny, Iowa. III. Background A. What is a delisting petition? A delisting petition is a request from a generator to EPA or to an authorized state to exclude or delist, from the RCRA list of hazardous wastes, waste the generator believes should not be considered hazardous under RCRA. B. How did EPA act on John Deere's delisting petition? After evaluating the delisting petition submitted by John Deere, EPA proposed, on August 20, 2014 (79 FR 49252), to exclude the waste from the lists of hazardous waste under Sec. 261.31. EPA issued a final rule on November 25, 2014 (79 FR 70108) granting John Deere's delisting petition to have up to 600 tons per year of the F006/F019 wastewater treatment sludge generated [[Page 60053]] at the John Deere Des Moines, Ankney, Iowa, facility excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a hazardous waste, once it is disposed in a Subtitle D landfill. C. What are the changes John Deere is requesting? John Deere requests removal of Table 1 item 1(C)--the requirement to conduct analysis of verification samples using EPA SW-846 Method 1313 Extraction at pH 2.88, 7 and 13 and the requirement not to exceed hexavalent chromium level in the resulting [Method 1313] extracts. John Deere requests increases in delisting levels in Table 1 item 1(D) as follows: Cadmium to 25.5 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), chromium (total) to 51,000 mg/kg, chromium (hexavalent) to 41 mg/kg, copper to 2877 mg/kg, nickel to 3030 mg/kg, zinc to 10,170, cyanide (total) to 9 mg/kg, and oil and grease to 64,500 mg/kg. John Deere requests the removal of delisting levels in Table 1 item 1(D) for antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cobalt, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, thallium, tin, vanadium, acetone, and methyl ethyl ketone. To support the request, John Deere submitted analytical data from verification testing events conducted since the exclusion was finalized. John Deere generated the sampling data under a Sampling Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan (June 2012 Revision). D. How did EPA evaluate John Deere's request? EPA evaluated the proposed increases in the delisting levels against the listing criteria and factors cited in Sec. 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). EPA evaluated the proposed increases in the delisting levels with respect to other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors could cause the wastes to be hazardous. EPA considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the concentrations of the constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste variability. For this delisting determination, we assumed that the waste would be disposed in a Subtitle D landfill and we considered transport of waste constituents through groundwater, surface water and air. We evaluated John Deere's petitioned waste using the Agency's Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) described in 65 FR 58015 (September 27, 2000), 65 FR 75637 (December 4, 2000), and 73 FR 28768 (May 19, 2008) to predict the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous constituents that may be released from the petitioned waste after disposal and determined the potential impact of the disposal of John Deere's petitioned waste on human health and the environment. To predict the potential for release to groundwater from landfilled wastes and subsequent routes of exposure to a receptor, the DRAS uses dilution attenuation factors derived from EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration and Transformation Products (EPACMTP). From a release to groundwater, the DRAS considers routes of exposure to a human receptor of ingestion of contaminated groundwater, inhalation from groundwater while showering and dermal contact from groundwater while bathing. From a release to surface water by erosion of waste from an open landfill into storm water run-off, DRAS evaluates the exposure to a human receptor by fish ingestion and ingestion of drinking water. From a release of waste particles and volatile emissions to air from the surface of an open landfill, DRAS considers routes of exposure of inhalation of volatile constituents, inhalation of particles, and air deposition of particles on residential soil and subsequent ingestion of the contaminated soil by a child. The technical support document and the user's guide to DRAS are included in the docket. At a benchmark cancer risk of one in one hundred thousand (1x10-5) and a benchmark hazard quotient of 1.0, the DRAS program determined maximum allowable concentrations for each constituent in both the waste and the leachate at an annual waste volume of 1000 cubic yards disposed in a landfill for 20 years after which time the landfill is closed. We used the maximum reported total and TCLP leachate concentrations as inputs to estimate the constituent concentrations in the groundwater, soil, surface water and air. The maximum allowable total COC concentrations in the Filter Cake as determined by the DRAS are as follows: milligrams per kilogram (mg/ kg) Barium--2.85 x 10\7\; Copper--5.34 x 10\6\; Chromium (III)--4.56 x 10\10\; Hexavalent Chromium--1.36 x 10\4\; Cyanide--2.99 x 10\6\; Lead--1.09 x 10\7\; Mercury--1.86 x 10\1\; Nickel--4.76 x 10\6\; Vanadium--1.52 x 10\8\; Zinc--1.38 x 10\7\; Acetone--3.63 x 10\8\; and Methyl Ethyl Ketone--1.45 x 10\9\. The maximum allowable leachate COC concentrations in the Filter Cake as determined by the DRAS are as follows: Milligrams per liter (mg/l) Copper--1.78 x 10\2\; Hexavalent Chromium--1.38 x 10\1\; Cyanide--2.27 x 10\1\; Lead--4.18 x 10\0\; Nickel--9.78 x 10\1\; Vanadium--2.47 x 10\1\; Zinc--1.48 x 10\3\; and Acetone--3.84 x 10\3\. The maximum allowable leachate COC concentrations in the Filter Cake as determined by TCLP are as follows: Milligrams per liter (mg/l) Barium--100; Chromium (total)--5; Mercury-- 0.2; and Methyl Ethyl Ketone--200. The concentrations of all constituents in both the waste and the leachate are below the allowable concentrations. The requested changes in delisting levels are below the allowable concentrations. EPA's decision to grant the requested changes by John Deere is based on the information submitted in support of this direct final rule, and other information in the docket. E. How does this final rule affect states? EPA is issuing this exclusion under the Federal RCRA delisting program. Thus, upon the exclusion being finalized, the wastes covered will be removed from Subtitle C control under the Federal RCRA program. This will mean, first, that the wastes will be delisted in any State or territory where the EPA is directly administering the RCRA program (e.g., Iowa, Indian Country). However, whether the wastes will be delisted in states which have been authorized to administer the RCRA program will vary depending upon the authorization status of the States and the particular requirements regarding delisted wastes in the various states. Some other generally authorized states have not received authorization for delisting. Thus, the EPA makes delisting determinations for such states. However, RCRA allows states to impose their own regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under Section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that prohibits a Federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the state, or that requires a state concurrence before the Federal exclusion takes effect, or that allows the state to add conditions to any Federal exclusion. We urge the petitioner to contact the state regulatory authority in each state to or through which it may wish to ship its wastes to establish the status of its wastes under the state's laws. EPA has also authorized some states to administer a delisting program in place of the Federal program, that is, to make state delisting decisions. In such states, the state delisting requirements [[Page 60054]] operate in lieu of the Federal delisting requirements. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized states unless the state makes the rule part of its authorized program. If John Deere transports the federally excluded waste to or manages the waste in any state with delisting authorization, John Deere must obtain a delisting authorization from that state before it can manage the waste as non- hazardous in that state. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this rule is not of general applicability and therefore is not a regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it applies to a particular facility only. Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to Sections 202, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as specified in Section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this final rule does not have Federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. Similarly, because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for this belief is that the Agency used the DRAS program, which considers health and safety risks to children, to calculate the maximum allowable concentrations for this rule. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report which includes a copy of the rule to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804 exempts from Section 801 the following types of rules (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under Section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability. Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The Agency's risk assessment did not identify risks from management of this material in a Subtitle D landfill. Therefore, EPA believes that any populations in proximity of the landfills used by this facility should not be adversely affected by common waste management practices for this delisted waste. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f). Dated: September 14, 2015. Mark Hague, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 261 as follows: PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 0 1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and 6938. 0 2. In the second Table 1 of Appendix IX to part 261, ``Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources'', in the entry for ``John Deere Des Moines Works of Deere & Company, Ankeny, IA'', revise entry ``1. Delisting Levels'' to read as follows: Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and 260.22 * * * * * [[Page 60055]] Table 1--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Facility Address Waste description ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * John Deere Des Moines Works of Deere Ankeny, IA.................... Company. * * * * * * * 1. Delisting Levels: (A) The WWTS Filter Cake shall not exhibit any of the ``Characteristics of Hazardous Waste'' in 40 CFR part 261, subpart C. (B) All TCLP leachable concentrations (40 CFR 261.24(a)) for the following constituents must not exceed the following levels (mg/L for TCLP): Nickel--32.4. (C) Reserved. (D) All total concentrations for the following constituents must not exceed the following levels (mg/kg): Cadmium-- 25.5; Chromium (total)--51,000; Chromium (hexavalent)--41; Copper-- 2877; Nickel--3030; Zinc--10,170; Cyanide--9, Oil and Grease--64,500. * * * * * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * [FR Doc. 2015-24459 Filed 10-2-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![60052 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 192 / Monday, October 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
CALIFORNIA—PM–10
Designation Classification
Designated area
Date Type Date Type
* * * * * * *
Mono County
Mammoth Lakes planning area ............................. November 4, 2015 ............ Attainment ........................ ........................
Includes the following sections:
a. Sections 1–12, 17, and 18 of Township
T4S, R28E;
b. Sections 25–36 of Township T3S, R28E;
c. Sections 25–36 of Township T3S, R27E;
d. Sections 1–18 of Township T4S, R27E;
and,
e. Sections 25 and 36 of Township T3S,
R26E.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * publish a timely withdrawal in the I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?
[FR Doc. 2015–25165 Filed 10–2–15; 8:45 am] Federal Register informing the public The EPA is publishing this rule
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P that this rule will not take effect. without a prior proposed rule because
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a we view this as a non-controversial
docket for this action under Docket ID amendment and anticipate no adverse
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
No. EPA–R07–RCRA–2014–0452. All comment. This action narrowly changes
AGENCY
documents in the docket are listed on the delisting levels for the F006/F019
40 CFR Part 261 the www.regulations.gov Web site. wastewater treatment sludge generated
Although listed in the index, some at the John Deere Des Moines facility in
[EPA–R07–RCRA–2014–0452; FRL–9934– information is not publicly available, Ankeny, Iowa. If the EPA receives
78–Region 7] e.g., CBI or other information whose adverse comment, we will publish a
Hazardous Waste Management disclosure is restricted by statute. timely withdrawal in the Federal
System; Identification and Listing of Certain other material, such as Register informing the public that this
Hazardous Waste; Direct Final Rule copyrighted material, is not placed on direct final rule will not take effect. In
the Internet and will be publicly that case, we may issue a proposed rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection available only in hard copy form. to propose the changes and would
Agency (EPA). Publicly available docket materials are address public comments in any
ACTION: Direct final rule. available either electronically through subsequent final rule based on the
www.regulations.gov or in by contacting proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection the further information contact below.
Agency (EPA) is taking direct final II. Does this action apply to me?
The public may copy material from any
action to revise delisting levels for the regulatory docket at no cost for the first This action only applies to the F006/
hazardous waste exclusion granted to 100 pages and at a cost of $0.15 per page F019 wastewater treatment sludge
John Deere Des Moines Works (John for additional copies. generated at the John Deere Des Moines
Deere) of Deere & Company, in Ankeny, facility in Ankeny, Iowa.
Iowa to exclude or ‘‘delist’’ up to 600 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
tons per calendar year of F006/F019 Kenneth Herstowski, Waste III. Background
wastewater treatment sludge. The Remediation and Permits Branch, Air A. What is a delisting petition?
wastewater treatment sludge is a filter and Waste Management Division, EPA
Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, A delisting petition is a request from
cake generated by John Deere’s Ankeny, a generator to EPA or to an authorized
Iowa, facility wastewater treatment Lenexa, KS 66219; telephone number
(913) 551–7631; email address: state to exclude or delist, from the
system was conditionally excluded from RCRA list of hazardous wastes, waste
the list of hazardous wastes on herstowski.ken@epa.gov.
the generator believes should not be
November 25, 2014. This direct final SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
considered hazardous under RCRA.
rule responds to a request submitted by information in this section is organized
John Deere to increase certain delisting as follows: B. How did EPA act on John Deere’s
levels and eliminate certain delisting I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?
delisting petition?
levels for the excluded waste. After II. Does this action apply to me? After evaluating the delisting petition
careful analysis and use of the Delisting III. Background submitted by John Deere, EPA proposed,
Risk Assessment Software (DRAS), EPA A. What is a delisting petition? on August 20, 2014 (79 FR 49252), to
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
has concluded the request may be B. How did EPA act on John Deere’s exclude the waste from the lists of
granted. delisting petition? hazardous waste under § 261.31. EPA
C. What are the changes John Deere is
DATES: This direct final rule is effective
requesting?
issued a final rule on November 25,
on December 4, 2015, without further D. How did EPA evaluate John Deere’s 2014 (79 FR 70108) granting John
notice, unless EPA receives adverse request? Deere’s delisting petition to have up to
comment by November 4, 2015. If EPA E. How does this final rule affect states? 600 tons per year of the F006/F019
receives adverse comment, we will IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews wastewater treatment sludge generated
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Oct 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM 05OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_60244/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 192 / Monday, October 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 60053
at the John Deere Des Moines, Ankney, Software (DRAS) described in 65 FR concentrations in the Filter Cake as
Iowa, facility excluded, or delisted, from 58015 (September 27, 2000), 65 FR determined by the DRAS are as follows:
the definition of a hazardous waste, 75637 (December 4, 2000), and 73 FR Milligrams per liter
once it is disposed in a Subtitle D 28768 (May 19, 2008) to predict the (mg/l) Copper—1.78 × 102; Hexavalent
landfill. maximum allowable concentrations of Chromium—1.38 × 101; Cyanide—2.27 ×
hazardous constituents that may be 101; Lead—4.18 × 100; Nickel—9.78 ×
C. What are the changes John Deere is
released from the petitioned waste after 101; Vanadium—2.47 × 101; Zinc—1.48
requesting?
disposal and determined the potential × 103; and Acetone—3.84 × 103. The
John Deere requests removal of Table impact of the disposal of John Deere’s maximum allowable leachate COC
1 item 1(C)—the requirement to conduct petitioned waste on human health and concentrations in the Filter Cake as
analysis of verification samples using the environment. To predict the determined by TCLP are as follows:
EPA SW–846 Method 1313 Extraction at potential for release to groundwater Milligrams per liter (mg/l) Barium—100;
pH 2.88, 7 and 13 and the requirement from landfilled wastes and subsequent Chromium (total)—5; Mercury—0.2; and
not to exceed hexavalent chromium routes of exposure to a receptor, the Methyl Ethyl Ketone—200.
level in the resulting [Method 1313] DRAS uses dilution attenuation factors The concentrations of all constituents
extracts. derived from EPA’s Composite Model in both the waste and the leachate are
John Deere requests increases in for Leachate Migration and below the allowable concentrations. The
delisting levels in Table 1 item 1(D) as Transformation Products (EPACMTP). requested changes in delisting levels are
follows: Cadmium to 25.5 milligrams From a release to groundwater, the below the allowable concentrations.
per kilogram (mg/kg), chromium (total) DRAS considers routes of exposure to a EPA’s decision to grant the requested
to 51,000 mg/kg, chromium (hexavalent) human receptor of ingestion of changes by John Deere is based on the
to 41 mg/kg, copper to 2877 mg/kg, contaminated groundwater, inhalation information submitted in support of this
nickel to 3030 mg/kg, zinc to 10,170, from groundwater while showering and direct final rule, and other information
cyanide (total) to 9 mg/kg, and oil and dermal contact from groundwater while in the docket.
grease to 64,500 mg/kg. bathing.
John Deere requests the removal of E. How does this final rule affect states?
From a release to surface water by
delisting levels in Table 1 item 1(D) for erosion of waste from an open landfill EPA is issuing this exclusion under
antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, into storm water run-off, DRAS the Federal RCRA delisting program.
cobalt, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, evaluates the exposure to a human Thus, upon the exclusion being
thallium, tin, vanadium, acetone, and receptor by fish ingestion and ingestion finalized, the wastes covered will be
methyl ethyl ketone. of drinking water. From a release of removed from Subtitle C control under
To support the request, John Deere waste particles and volatile emissions to the Federal RCRA program. This will
submitted analytical data from air from the surface of an open landfill, mean, first, that the wastes will be
verification testing events conducted DRAS considers routes of exposure of delisted in any State or territory where
since the exclusion was finalized. John inhalation of volatile constituents, the EPA is directly administering the
Deere generated the sampling data inhalation of particles, and air RCRA program (e.g., Iowa, Indian
under a Sampling Plan and Quality deposition of particles on residential Country). However, whether the wastes
Assurance Project Plan (June 2012 soil and subsequent ingestion of the will be delisted in states which have
Revision). contaminated soil by a child. The been authorized to administer the RCRA
technical support document and the program will vary depending upon the
D. How did EPA evaluate John Deere’s authorization status of the States and
request? user’s guide to DRAS are included in
the docket. the particular requirements regarding
EPA evaluated the proposed increases At a benchmark cancer risk of one in delisted wastes in the various states.
in the delisting levels against the listing one hundred thousand (1×10¥5) and a Some other generally authorized
criteria and factors cited in benchmark hazard quotient of 1.0, the states have not received authorization
§ 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). EPA evaluated DRAS program determined maximum for delisting. Thus, the EPA makes
the proposed increases in the delisting allowable concentrations for each delisting determinations for such states.
levels with respect to other factors or constituent in both the waste and the However, RCRA allows states to impose
criteria to assess whether there is a leachate at an annual waste volume of their own regulatory requirements that
reasonable basis to believe that such 1000 cubic yards disposed in a landfill are more stringent than EPA’s, under
additional factors could cause the for 20 years after which time the landfill Section 3009 of RCRA. These more
wastes to be hazardous. EPA considered is closed. We used the maximum stringent requirements may include a
whether the waste is acutely toxic, the reported total and TCLP leachate provision that prohibits a Federally
concentrations of the constituents in the concentrations as inputs to estimate the issued exclusion from taking effect in
waste, their tendency to migrate and to constituent concentrations in the the state, or that requires a state
bioaccumulate, their persistence in the groundwater, soil, surface water and air. concurrence before the Federal
environment once released from the The maximum allowable total COC exclusion takes effect, or that allows the
waste, plausible and specific types of concentrations in the Filter Cake as state to add conditions to any Federal
management of the petitioned waste, the determined by the DRAS are as follows: exclusion. We urge the petitioner to
quantities of waste generated, and waste milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) contact the state regulatory authority in
variability. Barium—2.85 × 107; Copper—5.34 × each state to or through which it may
For this delisting determination, we 106; Chromium (III)—4.56 × 1010; wish to ship its wastes to establish the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
assumed that the waste would be Hexavalent Chromium—1.36 × 104; status of its wastes under the state’s
disposed in a Subtitle D landfill and we Cyanide—2.99 × 106; Lead—1.09 × 107; laws.
considered transport of waste Mercury—1.86 × 101; Nickel—4.76 × EPA has also authorized some states
constituents through groundwater, 106; Vanadium—1.52 × 108; Zinc—1.38 to administer a delisting program in
surface water and air. We evaluated × 107; Acetone—3.63 × 108; and Methyl place of the Federal program, that is, to
John Deere’s petitioned waste using the Ethyl Ketone—1.45 × 109. The make state delisting decisions. In such
Agency’s Delisting Risk Assessment maximum allowable leachate COC states, the state delisting requirements
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Oct 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM 05OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_60244/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 192 / Monday, October 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 60055
TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
Facility Address Waste description
* * * * * * *
John Deere Des Moines Ankeny, IA.
Works of Deere Company.
* * * * * * *
1. Delisting Levels: (A) The WWTS Filter Cake shall not exhibit any of the ‘‘Characteristics of
Hazardous Waste’’ in 40 CFR part 261, subpart C. (B) All TCLP leachable concentrations
(40 CFR 261.24(a)) for the following constituents must not exceed the following levels
(mg/L for TCLP): Nickel—32.4. (C) Reserved. (D) All total concentrations for the following
constituents must not exceed the following levels (mg/kg): Cadmium—25.5; Chromium
(total)—51,000; Chromium (hexavalent)—41; Copper—2877; Nickel—3030; Zinc—10,170;
Cyanide—9, Oil and Grease—64,500.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * Related to the Electronic Health Record reclassification and recalibration budget
[FR Doc. 2015–24459 Filed 10–2–15; 8:45 am] Incentive Program; Extensions of the neutrality adjustment factor (as
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Medicare-Dependent, Small Rural discussed in section II.B. of this
Hospital Program and the Low-Volume correcting document), and the MGCRB
Payment Adjustment for Hospitals.’’ reclassification status of certain
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND DATES: This document is effective providers (as discussed in section II.B.
HUMAN SERVICES October 1, 2015. of this correcting document), each of
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: which resulted in additional conforming
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Donald Thompson, (410) 786–4487. corrections. Specifically, on page 49492,
Services we inadvertently miscalculated the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
estimated percentage change in the ECI
42 CFR Part 412 I. Background for compensation for the 30-day
In FR Doc. 2015–19049 which increment after March 14, 2013 and
[CMS–1632–CN] before April 15, 2013 for private
appeared in the August 17, 2015
RIN 0938–AS41 Federal Register, titled ‘‘Medicare industry hospital workers from the
Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS’)
Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Payment Systems for Acute Care ‘‘Compensation and Working
Prospective Payment Systems for Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Conditions.’’ The ECI is used to adjust
Acute Care Hospitals and the Long- Hospital Prospective Payment System a hospital’s wage data to calculate the
Term Care Hospital Prospective Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2016 wage index, and is based on the
Payment System Policy Changes and Rates; Revisions of Quality Reporting midpoint of a cost reporting period.
Fiscal Year 2016 Rates; Revisions of Requirements for Specific Providers, On page 49498, we are making
Quality Reporting Requirements for including Changes Related to the conforming changes to the number of
Specific Providers, including Changes Electronic Health Record Incentive hospitals in New Jersey that will be
Related to the Electronic Health Program; Extensions of the Medicare- receiving the imputed rural floor and to
Record Incentive Program; Extensions Dependent, Small Rural Hospital the FY 2016 rural floor value for Nevada
of the Medicare-Dependent, Small Program and the Low-Volume Payment as a result of correcting the ECI error,
Rural Hospital Program and the Low- Adjustment for Hospitals’’ (hereinafter the technical error in the calculation of
Volume Payment Adjustment for referred to as the FY 2016 IPPS/LTCH the MS–DRG reclassification and
Hospitals; Correction PPS final rule), there were a number of recalibration budget neutrality
technical and typographical errors that adjustment factor (discussed in section
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & II.B. of this correcting document), and
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. are identified and corrected in section
IV. of this correcting document. The the error in the reclassification status of
ACTION: Final rule and interim final rule 50 providers (discussed in section II.B.
provisions in this correction document
with comment period; correction. are effective as if they had been of this correcting document).
On page 49619, consistent with the
SUMMARY: This document corrects included in the document that appeared
conforming corrections to the IPPS
technical and typographical errors in in the August 17, 2015 Federal Register.
outlier fixed-loss cost threshold for FY
the final rule and interim final rule with Accordingly, the corrections are
2016 discussed in section II.B. of this
comment period that appeared in the effective October 1, 2015.
correcting document, we are making
Federal Register on August 17, 2015 II. Summary of Errors further conforming corrections to the FY
titled ‘‘Medicare Program; Hospital 2016 outlier fixed-loss amount for site
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems A. Summary of Errors in the Preamble
neutral cases in the context of our
for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long- On page 49412, we made a discussion regarding LTCH PPS high-
Term Care Hospital Prospective typographical error with regards to an cost outliers.
Payment System Policy Changes and MS–DRG code. We made inadvertent
Fiscal Year 2016 Rates; Revisions of and technical errors related to the B. Summary of Errors in the Addendum
Quality Reporting Requirements for employment cost index (ECI) used in On page 49776, we are correcting the
Specific Providers, including Changes the wage index, the MS–DRG MS–DRG reclassification and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:39 Oct 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05OCR1.SGM 05OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_60244/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 08:52:45
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 08:52:45
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Direct final rule. | |
| Dates | This direct final rule is effective on December 4, 2015, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 4, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect. | |
| Contact | Kenneth Herstowski, Waste Remediation and Permits Branch, Air and Waste Management Division, EPA Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219; telephone number (913) 551- | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 60052 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Hazardous Waste; Recycling and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR