Federal Register / Vol. 56. Na 63 / Tuesday. April 2. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
13406
the views of that person concerning the
disposition of the matter.
(b) The Board shall, in accordance
with its regulations (33 CFR part 52):
(1) Consider under 10 U.S.C. 1552 and
33 CFR part 52 an application for the
correction of records made by a Coast
Guard member who has filed a timely
complaint with the Inspector General,
alleging that a personnel action was
taken in reprisal for making or preparing
to make a lawful communication to a
Member of Congress or an Inspector
General. This may include oral
argument, examining and cross-
examining witnesses, taking
depositions, and conducting an
evidentiary hearing at the Board's
discretion.
(2) Review the report of any
investigation by the Inspector General
into the Coast Guard member's
allegation of reprisal.
(3} As deemed necessary, request the
Inspector General to gather further
evidence and issue a further report to
the Board. . .
(4) Issue a final decision concerning
the application for the correction of
military records under this part not later
than 180 days after receipt of a complete
application.
(c) If the Board elects to hold an
administrative hearing, the Coast Guard
member may be represented by a Coast
Guard law specialist if:
(1) The Inspector General, in the
report of the investigation, finds there is
probable cause to believe that a
personnel action was taken, withheld, or
threatened in reprisal for the Coast
Guard member making or preparing to
make a lawful communication to a
Member of Congress or an Inspector
General;
(2) The Chief Counsel of the Coast
Guard determines that the case is
unusually complex or otherwise requires
the assistance of a law specialist to
ensure proper presentation of the legal
issues in the case; and
(3) The Coast Guard member is not
represented by outside counsel chosen
by the member.
(d) If the Board elects to hold an
administrative hearing, the Board must
ensure that the Coast Guard member
may examine witnesses through
deposition, serve interrogatories, and
request the production of evidence,
including evidence in the Inspector
General investigatory record but not
included in the report released to the
member.
(el If the Board determines that a
personnel action was taken in reprisal
for a Coast Guard member making or
preparing to make a lawful
communication to a Member of
Congress or an Inspector General, the
Board may forward its recommendation
to the Secretary for the institution of
appropriate administrative or
disciplinary action against the
individual or individuals found to have
taken reprisal, and direct any
appropriate correction of the member's
records.
(f) The Board shall notify the
Inspector General of the Board's
decision concerning an application for
the correction of military records of a
Coast Guard member who alleged
reprisal for making or preparing to make
a lawful communication to a Member of
Congress or an Inspector General, and
of any recommendation to the Secretary
for appropriate administrative or
disciplinary action against the
individual or individuals found to have
taken reprisal.
(g) When reprisal is found, the
Secretary shall ensure that appropriate
corrective action is taken.
§53.11 Procedures.
(a) Any member of the Coast Guard.
who reasonably believes a personnel
action (including the withholding of an
action) was taken or threatened in
reprisal for making or preparing to make
a lawful communication to a Member of
Congress or an Inspector General may
file a complaint with the DOT Inspector
General Hotline under this part. Such a
complaint may be filed by telephone, or
by letter addressed to the Department of
Transportation, Office of Inspector
General, Hotline Center, P.O. Box 23178,
Washington, D.C. 20026-0178. Telephone
Numbers: 1-800-424-9071. FTS 8-366-
1461. The commercial number is (202}
366-1461.
(b) The complaint should include the
name, address, and telephone number of
the complainant; the name and location
of the activity where the alleged
violation occurred; the personnel action
taken, or threatened, that is alleged to
be motivated by reprisal; the
individual(s) believed to be responsible
for the personnel action; the date when
the alleged reprisal occurred; and any
information that suggests or evidences a
connection between the communication
and reprisal. The complaint should also
include a description of the
communication to a Member of
Congress or an Inspector General
including a copy of any written
communication and a brief summary of
any oral communication showing date of
communication, subject matter, and the
name of the person or official to whom
the communication was made.
(c) A member of the Coast Guard who
is alleging reprisal for making or
preparing to make a lawful
communication to a Member of
Congress or an Inspector General may
submit an application for the correction
of military records to the Board, hi
accordance with regulations governing
the Board. See 33 CFR part 52.
(d) An application submitted under
paragraph (c) of this section shall be
considered in accordance with
regulations governing the Board. See 33
CFR part 52.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March
26,1991.
Samuel 1C Skinner,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 91-7600 Filed 4-1-91; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4SNWQ-*
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA/OSW FR-91-015; FR-3914-2J
RIN 2050-AA78
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and listing of
Hazardous Waste; Toxiclty
Characteristic; Hydrocarbon Recovery
Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: On November 7,1990, the
Agency proposed to extend the
compliance date for the Toxicity
Characteristic until January 25,1993 for
produced groundwater from free phase
hydrocarbon recovery operations at
certain petroleum industry sites—
namely, refineries, marketing terminals,
and bulk plants. Made aware of likely
disruptions to cleanup operations at
these facilities after the Toxicity
Characteristic rulemaking process, the
Agency .concluded that an extension of
the compliance date would ensure that
these operations would not be
interrupted and thereby avoid setbacks
in then-remediation activities.
The Agency is today making final this
proposed extension. However, the scope
of the extension has been expanded to
include free hydrocarbon recovery
operations at petroleum pipeline and
transportation sector spill sites as well
as petroleum refineries, marketing . .
terminals, and bulk plants. Additionally,
free phase hydrocarbon recovery
operations involving infiltration galleries
will not be included in the scope of the
extension. .
EFFECTIVE DATEt March 25,1991.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
Itegtster / Vol. ga. Net 68 the TC,Eegulatory level far
benzene), is 'Oftenj-einjected for .purposes
of plume control in systems designed to
facilitate fee recovery at free phase •
Hydrocarbon. The Injection weBs used in
these operations are subject to
regulation under "both fhe, Safe Dririkliig
Water Act ISBWA3and;RCRA. These
wells, wMch lave 13s torieafly 'beenTIIC
Class V wells, .would "become Class IV
wels once fheTC rule "became effective.
However, Section 3020 of RCRAtmd
SDWa.-regalsffions:pTeTiibit'flie injection
of hazardous .waste 'into ar above , an
water
Response, iConjp8nestion,JaBd'iiabnify
phase liydrocatboii recovery ^operations
do not currefiily meet the Section *3020
requirements, andibec8use1;hey. do not
have hazardous waste ^underground
injection|>erroits,*the continued
operation-of fee wells -worfd be
prohibited upon the effective •datettf fee
TC, feFcing sflie ireoevery eperations to
oease. !In«aBB8 *wfcere -tire -reinjedted
gi?0iHi6wa'ter accernplislies COTftraSlttf ;the
free fhydrooarbon plume, ;the •plume
would so longer ibe contained, possibly
resiilting in fecreased 'exposure -ckie "to
rmgration of %e pluaie.
In orfler to wvoid 'fcese
effvlronmefitally fletrnnerital
oonseqaences, Ihe Agency proposed to
extend the TC 'compliance tiffte until
Janaary 25, 5993. for rerajjEctedprodnced
groundwaterfemi free phase
hydrocartjonTBcovery -operations 'at
petroleum «Sneries, mafkethig
terminate, amd 'briOc jftants. -§SBRB -55 PR
46829, 'NovEiritrer 7., 1'990). Tn.t)rdeT to
allow thes% opeTafions ;to Jcontmue wMle
comments tm "fliatt proposal were Ijeing
solicited arid evaluated, the Agency
isstred interim final -rules on ©ctcfber 5,
1990«ndFjS)nmi3r 1, 1991, eXtenaing the
•complianne 'Sate for 'these operations
thraughltfarch 25, ^991 'fsEB S5 FR 4083-4
and SB'RR'SSTB, respectivBly3.
'During ;the toterim;periodluritil
January '25, T393), "the Agency 'intends to
woflc .wifh 'the states and the affected
petroleum Industry sectors to develop an
approach that would allow the
authorized operation of the Injeefion
wells in compliance wifh1Section302Dx>f
RCRA anS^DWA requirements for
undergrounfl'injec'tion wefls.This
activity will t>e -coordinated "by fhe
Office of SolidWaste,:m conjuncfion
with the Office of Briaking Water's
Undergroundlnjection Control Program.
Furthermore, the .Agency views
today's .rule .as a limited action jo
address anlmpossible situation lacing .
hydrocarbon .recovery operations. The
Agency acknowledges that this rule
does not address a number of other
important issues raised by commenters
as to^e'sSect^of^Ihe TC rule-on,cleaaup
adtiadties!fe;5.f itaefeffectof the TCTiile
onpefa^etua-eflritaimnate€-so'Hs,'OT on
the Tem03iaflon Jttf ^tound
contaminated .with .dissolved
adtossts sfeese SSSHBB •sfearSy in -anofeer
context •Specifica'%, ihe.AgBfflcyls
pr^panag a^espanfie to :pe*ki0H3 foam
response
to these fe'fitons-wlH address m*Htyeff
the teaacter 'issues reletedto the-cteflnup
of coFjtffminated media /feat exhMts the
•A. Scope dftfie Extension ;
The majority of comments en the
Agency's proposal addressed the scope
focused upon tolhlhe 'types of spill sites
and the -types of ^operations that should
be«iib>jedt'4o ^hie'e^tenied'coiBiiHanice
date.
1. Types ;of, Spill Sites
Manycommeirters suggestedftat the
types of -spiffl sites snb|etit to JthB
extended compnance date "be expanded
beyonfl the proposed scqpe '(peardleum
refineries, marlcefing 'terminals, ;arid "bulk
plarit^. Some commerrters suggesiea
indluo!ing o'flierpe'troleum'todnstry
sectors — namely, pipelines aad
transporta'aon; others suggested
including sites other 'than those
associated with wholesale .petroleum
marketing Ie,£., toe «hfimlcal
manufacturing Industry and other "bulk
petroleum storage}. These .commenters
stated feat recovery operations at these
sites are Identical to those At the
proposed types olsltes .and lhat the
same regulatory and statutory Ixarriers
exist
The Agency Tecpgnizesithat free
phase hydrocarbon recovery operations
can be isimilar, •regariiless «f the
industrial sector >with -which ithe .-Bpill ske
is associated. However, -data indicating
fee nurabeis of ;potential Bites and the
nature ®f fee 'reeovery operations within
fee=suggesied addMional catejonks »tas
prowided fmly by the petaoileum amin&tory
fonfeeir pipeline and transportation
sectors. This daia indicates that only B
relative iewcff "these pipeline and
transportation sector sites have;csrrent
or planned &ee phase racovery
operations 'wMeh involve tbs aeinjtaatian
of TC-hazandons iprodtmed gronndwsa ter.
While camisejiterB HBiEflfthBrtisinHlar
frpBjihaae rar/inpry t^ppi-nthina OQGOT.TO
industries »feer 'than peterileiam, •• data
indicating the ^nunber arf sach -sites was
oat provided, ia 4be absence asJsjich
data for ihe-aSiieT sectors,
of, iorther :
She «cepe .-of %SB
is theriEiEDreiejqiandingitli®. -scope .rflha
ext
well) unless«affiim'feeritmispartTffB
cleanup under :RCEA or ;fhe
and NevaHa,!re9HesiiHgTe1Ref from'fce
TC Hile as 3t apifflfis ID Blfianup df
(l&m, t£or«Etan$3e, da(a i
a psrroteniHTe&iEiyiB iterated aa-ars
EBttjMftB
-------
13408 Federal Register /Vol. 56. No. 63 / Tuesday. April 2. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
extension applies only to the produced
groundwater from recovery of free
phase hydrocarbon from the refinery.
The Agency does, however, encourage
the submission of more detailed data on
free-phase hydrocarbon recovery at spill
sites other than those that are included
in today's final rule (Le., other than from
the petroleum industry).
2. Types of Remediation Operations
(a) Dissolved Phase Remediation. The
Agency's proposal specifically
addressed free phase hydrocarbon
recovery operations and the statutory
and regulatory barriers to reinjection of
produced groundwater from these
operations. The Agency recognized
these operations as a first step in spill
remediation, which is often followed by
remediation of the dissolved
hydrocarbon in the groundwater and
remediation of the soil. Numerous
commentera requested that the scope of
the extension include the remediation of
dissolved hydrocarbon as well as
recovery of the free phase hydrocarbon.
Another commenter, however, urged the
Agency to clarify that the extension
would include only free phase recovery
and would not include dissolved
hydrocarbon remediation. (This
commenter recognized that the preamble
of the Agency's proposal clearly referred
only to free phase recovery but was
concerned that the proposed regulatory
language was not sufficiently clear to
indicate that dissolved phase
remediation was not within the scope of
the extension'.)
Those commenters who suggested
expanding the scope of the extension
stated that the pump and treat
operations used in dissolved phase
remediation should not be subject to
RCRA Subtitle C requirements. These
commenters cited administrative burden
as well as the time and expense related
to permit requirements as a basis for
including these operations in the
extension.
The Agency believes that these
commenters have raised important
concerns that warrant further
consideration. The purpose of the
proposed extension, however, was to
grant relief to those facilities that were
in a regulatory "impossibility" situation.
These facilities had recovery operations
underway (or were committed to
undertaking these operations), typically
through agreements with state agencies,
which would be halted if the produced
groundwater was defined as a RGRA
hazardous waste by the TC. At these
facilities, the operation of the injection
wells (as SDWA Class IV wells) would
be prohibited under federal regulation
but cessation of the operations could
violate their agreement with the state
agency. In addition, where the injected
groundwater serves plume containment
purposes, a halt in the operation of the
wells could have an environmentally
detrimental effect. It is this
"impossibility" situation that is the
Agency's basis for selecting the types of
operations that should be included in
the extension.
For the pump and treat operations for
dissolved hydrocarbon remediation, the
"impossibility" either does not exist or
can be avoided. The treatment devices
can be operated under RCRA Subtitle C
interim status provisions and, thus, their
operation need not be terminated prior
to permit application, review and
issuance. In regard to injection wells at
this step of the remediation, the Agency
has no basis to believe that the
grpundwater (which is already being
treated) cannot be treated to
contaminant levels less than the TC
regulatory levels prior to reinjection.
Once the groundwater is so treated, it is
no longer subject to hazardous waste
management standards and the
reinjection wells can continue to be
operated as authorized Class V wells.
Thus, the Agency believes that limiting
the extension to free phase recovery
operations is consistent with its intent of
providing relief that is focused on those
operations that would otherwise be in
an impossibility situation.1 At the same
time, the Agency recognizes that
commenters have raised a number of
legitimate concerns on the effect of the
TC rule on the remediation of
contaminated groundwater. The Agency
is considering these concerns as it
develops a response to the New York
petition on petroleum cleanups.
(b) Treatment of Produced
Groundwater from Free Phase
Hydrocarbon Recovery. The Agency's
proposal described reinjection of
.untreated produced groundwater.from
free phase hydrocarbon recovery
. operations. Several commenters stated
that, in certain circumstances, produced
groundwater from these operations is
treated to some extent (although still
1 The Agency notes that injection during free
phase recovery can also be distinguished from
injection during dissolved phase remediation on the
basis of the benefits of treating the groundwater.
The Agency agrees with the industry's assertion
that, during free phase recovery, there is often no
real benefit to treating the groundwater prior to
reinjection since the presence of a large,
concentrated contaminant source (the free phase
hydrocarbon) would immediately recontaminate the
injected groundwater to previous levels with
negligible effect on the net mass of hydrocarbon in
the subsurface. This is not the case with pump and
treat operations wherein the removal of
hydrocarbon from the groundwater prior to
reinjection ultimately will have a substantial effect
on the mass of hydrocarbon in the subsurface.
above TC regulatory levels) prior to
reinjection and that the extension
should also include these treatment
operations. As with comments related to
dissolved phase remediation, described
immediately above, administrative
burden, cost, and time resources were
cited.
The Agency has not included these
activities in today's extension for the
same reasons as cited above for'
dissolved phase remediation (i.e., the
devices can continue to operate under
interim status provisions). This
treatment, therefore will not be included
in the scope of the extension. However,
unlike the treatment devices, the
injection wells associated with these
operations do face the same problems as
wells where untreated groundwater is
reinjected.2 Thus, the Agency believes
that the compliance for these wells
should also be extended. That is, the
produced groundwater from the free
phase recovery will be subject to the
extension at the point of reinjection
regardless of whether it has been
treated. This will allow continued
operation of the operations without .
removing the treatment devices
themselves from appropriate
regulations. . .
3. Infiltration Galleries
In its proposal, the Agency recognized
that reinjection of produced
groundwater is sometimes effected
through the use of infiltration galleries
rather than injection wells. The Agency
stated that it had insufficient
information on the design and operation
of these galleries to determine whether
they should be treated differently from
injection wells and specifically
requested information on them. Several
commenters provided information on
infiltration galleries and suggested that,
since infiltration galleries serve
essentially the same purpose as
injection wells, they should be included
in the scope of the extension. '
While the Agency agrees that
infiltration galleries serve essentially the
same purpose as injection wells, it notes
that the operation of these galleries does
not pose the same regulatory and
statutory barriers as the operation of
injection wells. As noted previously, the
intent of the proposal was to address
the regulatory impossibility that can be
* While it could be argued tat, like in dissolved .
phase pump and treat activities, the produced
groundwater at these operations could be further
treated to levels less that the TC regulatory levels,
the Agency recognizes that such additional
treatment would provide little or no real
environmental benefit during the free phase
recovery operations. (See discussion in footnote 1.)
-------
Federal Segster
. 36, No, m :J Tuesday, ApSl 2,
/
encountered during free phase
hydrocarbon recovery. Since operation
of hifiltration galleries does not pose ;the
same "impossibility" situation as
operation of injection wells, the Agency
concludes that infUtraiion galleries
should not be included in today's
extension: As a result, infiltration
galleries at .free phase recovery
operations will now "become subject to
the Toxicity Characteristic. (The TC
compliance date fbrthese,galleries was
extended until March '25,1991 in a
previous interim-fiBBl-rule.^ A-discussion
of requirements for owners/opeprftora t#
these 'units is included in section HI
{Implementation of TC Requirements lor
Infiltration:GaHeries)«f today's notice.
The Agency points out, however, that
if existing infiltration galleries can fee
reconfigured to meet the definition of an
underground injection well "{see 40 'CFR
261.10) prior to tte compliance date for
infiltration galleries (i.e., ^before
(October 2,1991}), they will be subject
to the compliance date extension for
injection wells -in today's notice.
Industry'representatives have indicated!
thatlhis is feasible at certain facilities.
B. Existing State^OversightfNew and
Planned 'Operations
In the .proposal, the Agency noted that
existing .free phase hydrocarbon
recovery operations were typically
Tjeuig performed under some level-of
state oversight The affected industry'
had advised the Agency that this
oversight varied'from formal orders to
madhless formal agreements. The
industry also •wdvlsed-that these tjrders
and-agreements typically contained a -
requirement toiassesfs the grouridwater
and the need for fether remediation
once 'the fee phase -recovery is
completed. One; comm enter contended
that deferral to state oversight is
appropriate provided that-the states'
requirements ace'Comparable to the
RCRA program—specifically, including
corrective action requirements. Other
oommenters, including state regulatory
agencies, claimed that .the current level
of state oversight is sufficiently
protective of human health and the
environment.
For previously-staled reasons,
including concerns related to
detrimental environmental
consequences and the need to provide
immediate Telief m andmpossibiHty
situation, the Agency %elieves that
currefft operations should be allowed to
continue under the'present'level of state
oversight However, the Agency ateo
believes that, Tvithin'the ha-raow scope
of today's action, it ;JB appropriate to
require mareformaKzEd stale • ,•••••'
agreements for new operations that- '
begin darfi^ the lenn of ioday's
^extension. aEhesEefare,in;orderfer new
operations So be isobjectta the extended
complianoe date, they mu*t be
performed -under written tftate
agreements, This requirement will
ensare :that 'fee 'States liave wriufited
the human -healii and environmental
rislcs «nd that the ^operations are
conducted hi 'accordance vftfliAe
states* reqtorements.
Mao, the Agency believes mat these
agreements should provide for an
assessment of the groundwatefand fhe
need for further remediation >OTice fhe
free phase recovery-0perati0n;is
complete. Theref ore,
for the extended compliance date, l2ie
state agreement must contain such a
provision. tmimpJOBing this provision, the
Agencgr notes that it is merely requiring
what industry has advised is already
typical of the state agreements.
Finally, 'the Agency be'Keves ftat-ft :
should receive notification of new
operations in 'order to enforce 'fibre
conditions of toSayts delayed
compliance nils, and, ultimately
implementlhe TC at'fhese ^tes. For
these reasons, and since new operations
subject to the extension wiD be
conducted under written state
agreements, notification will be
accomplished by submitting a copy tif
the state agreement to the Agency.
Copies should be sabmitteai to:
ChBTacteris tics Section '(QS-33S), U.S.
EnviranmentelPratection Agency,401 M
StreetSW^ Washington, J3G 20360.
in diSferea'fiating^between exisftng
and-new op«rafionsfor pntposes/of
qualfiVingfoT'fiieextenaea effective
date, the Agency reiterates 'that its
motivation is to allow the existing
operations to conthiuE, While -the
additional requirements for new
operations may cause delays i(e,g,, until
written state agreements are issued},
there will not be setbacks hi .progress of
the nature that would be caused by
interruption of existing operations (e.g.,
migration of a currently contained
plume).
The Agency again notes, however,
that the question of the appropriate feve!
of state oversight of any.cte£fnap
rule is granted wiilfee atddressed more
generally imlihe Agency^s response to ,
action,
adop ting «ire5atwely Harrow -approach.
TneiAgency will, however,
Subsequent to the pf
TC rule, fhe Agency has ieceivedihiea
petitions to-Eefervorexclade-an
petroleum-cantanimated;media irons Ae
applioa'tioniof that chanactwastic. These
'petitions were submitted Agr the .State posBebtem%ftermi s^a^tua (era
penrfit madiSoBtionl.
cocsider«'aieitega€5noibroa3«r'rorite*t. re^^s^ffiSesfor'aflMf^ttoii^alfery
-------
134JO Federal Register /Vol. 56. No. 63 / Tuesday,-April 2, 1991 /Rules and Regulations
that chooses to operate beyond the
compliance date.
To receive interim status, owners or
operators of infiltration galleries must
submit a part A permit application to
EPA. [Alternatively, if the facility .
already has interim status, it must
submit an amended part A in
accordance with 40 CFR 270.70, or if the
facility is permitted it must submit a
permit modification in accordance with
§ 270.42.) Under the Toxicity .
Characteristic rule, facilities which
managed the identified wastes were
required to submit their part A
applications (or revised part A
applications or permit modifications) by
September 25,1990. However, on
•September 24, the compliance date for
infiltration galleries used in
hydrocarbon recovery operation was
suspended until today's notice. Because
these facilities may now again become
subject to RCRA permitting
requirements, the Agency believes that
there is.likely to be substantial
confusion as to when the owner or
operator of infiltration galleries was
required to submit the part A. form. With
this notice, EPA is exercising its
authority under § 270.10(e)[2) to extend
the part A application date ta October 2,
1991. The six month period allowed for
submission of the part A form is the
usual amount of time allowed under the
RCRA permit program for newly
regulated facilities.
In the preamble to the TC rule, EPA
described in some detail the procedures
under which existing units newly
regulated by the TC rule would receive
interim status, or would be added to a
facility's permit through the permit
modification procedures. (See 55 FR
11849.) Owner/operators of infiltration
units handling TC wastes should consult
this discussion for details on
implementation. It should be particularly
noted that infiltration galleries are land
disposal units. These units will need to
be in compliance with the applicable
interim status standards in part 265 on
the effective date. Additionally, Part B
permit applications for the units will be
required one year, after the effective
date of the rule, and the owner/operator
would also be required to certify
compliance with the groundwater
monitoring and financial responsibility
requirements by- that time.
Infiltration galleries will not be
required to submit notification pursuant
to RCRA section 3010 under today's
action. Under this Section, the
Administrator may require all persons
who handle hazardous wastes to notify
EPA of their hazardous waste activity
when the wastes are identified or listed
as hazardous. Owner/operators of
infiltration galleries handling TC wastes
became subject to Section 3010
notification requirements as a result of
the original TC rule, published on March
29,1990, and therefore presumably they
have already submitted their Section
3010 notices, where required. As a
result, today's action does not require
resubmission of the notice.
' In summary, today's notice
establishes the following schedule for
infiltration galleries to comply with the
TC:
Table I—Implementation Timeline for
' Infiltration Galleries
0 Months: Publication in the Federal
Register.
6 Months:
• Owner/operatprs of infiltration
galleries wishing to avoid entering the
RCRA program cease managing newly
regulated TC hazardous wastes in these
units. Units that were receiving TC
hazardous wastes must cease further
receipt (or reconfigure) to avoid
regulation under Subtitle C.
• Newly regulated facilities:
—Submit Part A permit application.
• Already regulated facilities:
—Interim status facilities: Submit
amended Part A permit application.
•^-Permitted TSDFs: Submit Class 1
'permit modification.
12 Months:
• Already regulated facilities:
—Permitted TSDFs: Submit Class 2 or
3 permit modifications. (Note: EPA
is not aware of any infiltration
galleries currently holding RCRA
Part B permits; assuming that this is
the case, all permit modification
submitted under this requirement
would fall into Class 3.)
18 Months:
• Newly regulated infiltration
galleries: Submit Part B permit
application and certify to EPA
compliance with ground water
monitoring and financial assurance
requirements. Interim status terminates
for units for which Part B permit
application was not submitted and
certifications were not made by this
date. , " -
IV. Effective date
The effective date of the Toxicity
Characteristic rule was September 25,
1990. The compliance date was
suspended until March 25,1991 for the
operations described in today's notice.
Today's additional extension is effective
on March 25,1991. The Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
amended Section 3010 of RCRA to allow
rules to become effective in less than six
months when the regulated community
does not need the six-month period to
come.into.compliance. Because this rule
extends a delayed compliance date for
the Toxicity Characteristic rule, a six-
month effective date is not necessary for
compliance by the regulated community. •
In light of the unnecessary hardship and
expense that would be imposed on
facilities, that have hydrocarbon
recovery operations by an effective date
six months after promulgation, EPA
believes that this rule should be
effective immediately upon
promulgation. These reasons also
provide a basis for making this rule
effective immediately, for exempted
facilities under the Administrative
Procedures Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(d).
V. State Authorization
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of .RCRA, the .EPA
may authorize qualified States to •
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. Following
authorization, EPA retains enforcement
authority under sections 3008, 3013, and
7003 of RCRA, although authorized
States have primary enforcement
responsibility. The standards and
requirements for authorization are found
in 40 CFR part 271.
Prior to HSWA, a State with final
authorization administered its
hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA
administering the Federal program in
that State. The Federal requirements no
longer applied in the authorized State
and EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities that the State was authorized
to permit. When new, more stringent
Federal requirements were promulgated
or enacted, the State was obliged to
enact equivalent authority within
specific timeframes. New Federal
requirements did not take effect in an
authorized State until the State adopted
the requirements as State law. In
contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (42
U.S.C. 6926(g)), new requirements and
prohibitions imposed by HSWA take
effect in authorized States at the same
time that they take effect in
. rionauthorized States. EPA is directed to
carry out these requirements and
prohibitions in authorized States,
including the issuance of permits, until
the State is granted authorization to do
so. While States must still adopt
HSWA-related provisions as State law
to retain final authorization, HSWA
applies in authorized States in the
interim.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56,. No. 63 / Tuesday,. April 2. 1991 /Rules and Regulations :-134ttl
B. Effect on State Authorization
EPA will implement the provisions of
today's final rule in authorized States
until their programs are modified to
adopt the Toxicity Characteristic and
the modification is approved by EPA.
Implementation of today's rule beyond
the date of a Staters receiving final
authorization for the Toxicity
• Characteristic depends upon actions
taken by the State, as discussed below.
EPA will implement the provisions of
today's rule in unauthorized States.
Today's rule extends the compliance
date for requirements imposed in the
Toxicity Characteristic regulation (see
55 FR11798, March 29,1990] for certain
hydrocarbon recovery operations. The
Toxicity Characteristic was
promulgated pursuant to a HSWA
provision and must be adopted by
States which intend to retain final
authorization. However, today's rule
provides, for a limited period of time, a
less stringent standard for certain
hydrocarbon recovery operations than
would be imposed hi the Toxicity
Characteristic. In order to promote
environmentally beneficial hydrocarbon
operations, today's rule provides that
these wastes would not be hazardous
wastes under the Federal regulations
until January 25,1993 and States would
not be required to mandate their
management as such in order to retain
their RCRA authorization, However,
Section 3009 of RCRA provides that
States may impose more stringent
requirements than those imposed under
Federal regulations. States, whether
using RCRA authorities (e.g., authorities
under State law for which a State-has
received final authorization to
implement the Toxicity Characteristic
provisions in lieu of EPA), or other State
authorities under other statutes, may
impose hazardous waste requirements
on such operations, or may require other
more stringent conditions upon
management of these wastes.
VI. Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive order 12291, EPA
must determine whether a regulation is
"major," and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis; The overall effect of today's
rule is to extend the compliance date for
requirements imposed by the final •
Toxicity Characteristic rule for certain
limited hydrocarbon operations. No
sampling or'analysis requirements are
imposed by today's rule. The net effect .
of today's rule is to. extend cost sayings
to certain segments of the regulated
community'. Consequently, no 1
Regulatory Impact Analysis is. required.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility ;
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, whenever an
agency is required to publish a General
Notice of Rulemaking for any proposed
or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a -
regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the impact of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility
analysis is required, however, if the
head of the Agency certifies that the rule
will hot have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The extension of the compliance date
of the Toxicity Characteristic
requirements of certain limited
hydrocarbon recovery activities hi this
. rule is deregulatory hi nature and thus
will only provide beneficial . .'
opportunities for entities that may be
affected by the rule. Accordingly, I
hereby certify that this regulation will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. This regulation, therefore, does
not require a regulatory flexibility
analysis. • : '
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Agency estimates that the number
of facilities that will be affectetl
annually by the reporting requirements
in today's rule will not exceed six.
Therefore, approval of the Office of ,
Management and Budget under the . ,
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. is not required. .
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Hazardous waste, Recycling.
Dated: March 25,1991.
William K. Reilly,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out hi the
preamble, chapter I of title 40 of the CFR
part 261 is. amended .as follows:
PART 26t—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.SJC. 6905, 6912(a), 6921.
6922, and 6938.
2. Section. 261.4 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(ll) to read as
follows: .
§261.4 Exclusions.
-
(11) Injected groundwater that is ,.
hazardous only because it', exhibits .the.
. Toxicity Characteristic (Hazardous
Waste Codes,D018 through DQ43 only) in
1 261.24 of this part that is feinfected
through an underground-injection.weft
pursuant to free phase hydrocarbon- •
recovery operations undertaken ait' - .
petroleum refineries, petroleum'
marketing terminals, .petroleum bulk;. ,
plants, petroleum pipelines, and .; "
petroleum transportation spill sites until
January 25, i993,.This extension .applies
to recovery operations'in existence, or
for which contracts have been issued,
on or before March 25,199lt For '" • •
groundwater returhed-through
infiltration galleries from such ,- •
operations at petroleum refineries,..
marketing terminals, and bulk plants,
until [insert date'six months after ••'
publication]. New operations involving
injection wells (beginning after March
25,1991) will qualify for this compliance
date extension (until January 25,1993)
only if: (i) Operations; are performed
pursuant to a written state agreement
that includes a provision to assess the;
groundwater.and the. need for further- •
remediation once the free phase .
recovery is completed; and- ..-•">'•'.. . •
(ii) A copy of.the written agreement
has been submitted to; Characteristics "
Section (.OS-333), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW,;
Washington, DC 20460.
[FR Doc. 91-7459 Filed 4-1-91; 8:45 am}
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M '
40 CFR Part 271
[FRL-3918-3] .
Hazardous Waste Management
Program: Revisions to th» Authorized
State of Oklahoma Progrand .
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency. ..-.•<... ; ' •
ACTION: Immediate final rule. • •
SUMMARY: The State of Oklahoma has.'..
applied for final authorisation "of • •
revisions to its hazardous waste.
program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery'Act
(RCRAJ. The Environmental Protection '
Agency '(EPA) has reviewed the
Oklahoma application and; has made a
decision, subject to public review'and „
comment, .that the Oklahoma hazardous
waste program revision satisfies all of
the requirements necessary ;to qualify.;- .
for final authorization. Thus, EPA :' .
intends to approve[the Oklahoma v"-.
hazardous waste program revisions. The
Oklahoma application for program,- ;-.-
revision is avaiilabie.^r.publift-ieylfew,
and comment. ..._ ;....>; '. ?;-,.% .;•.-
DATES: Final-authorization for- stm.o.v
Oklahoma is effective June 3.'1891 & '•(
unless EPA publishes:a prior Federal,;
-------
------- |