Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

ENTER EQC MEETING DATEENTER EQC MEETING DATE mm dd, yyyy

Oregon Environmental Quality Commission Meeting

Agency Staff Report

Rulemaking Action Item NO. XX

Selmet Delisting 2018

Table of Contents

DEQ recommendation to the EQC  3

Overview  4

Optional Additional Topic from Notice  5

Statement of Need  6

Rules affected, authorities, supporting documents  7

Fee Analysis  8

Statement of fiscal and economic impact  9

Federal relationship  10

Land Use  11

Advisory Committee  12

Public Hearings  13

Summary of comments and DEQ responses  14

Commenters  17

Implementation  18

Five-year review  20

Draft Rules – With Edits Highlighted  22

Draft Rules – With Edits Included  23

Supporting Documents  24

DEQ recommendation to the EQC

DEQ recommends that the Environmental Quality Commission adopt the proposed rules in Attachment A as part of Chapter 340 of the Oregon Administrative Rules.

DEQ proposal

DEQ proposes amending Oregon’s hazardous waste regulations in chapter 340, division 101, of the Oregon Administrative Rules. The change will incorporate the delisting of Selmet’s F006 hazardous waste. DEQ is taking this action under the following authorities:

•  50 Federal Register 52629, Oct. 10, 1995 (EPA authority for Oregon to operate hazardous waste program)

•  40 C.F.R. sections 260.20 and 260.22 (authority for petitions to delist a substance), incorporated by reference in OAR 340-100-0020, -0022

•  Oregon Revised Statute 466.075(3) (authority to exempt substances from hazardous waste requirements)

•  OAR 340-100-0020, -0022 (authority to petition for exclusion)

A petitioner who wants DEQ to delist a hazardous waste must comply with 40 C.F.R. sections 260.20 and 260.22, incorporated by reference in OAR 340-100-0020, -0022. To summarize, the petition must show the waste does not contain the constituents for which EPA originally listed the waste, in concentrations above risk-based standards. This is done using EPA’s Delisting Risk Assessment Software. The risk-based evaluation must also determine that factors, including additional constituents other than those for which the waste was listed, do not warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste. In addition, the waste must not be a characteristic hazardous waste (e.g., ignitable, reactive, etc.).

After reviewing Selmet’s sampling and analysis results, DEQ determined it is not necessary for Selmet to manage its chemical-etching and milling sludge as hazardous waste. DEQ determined the waste does not contain constituents of concern that originally caused EPA to list the waste as an F006 hazardous waste. DEQ therefore proposes the Environmental Quality Commission adopt the proposed rule amendments to delist Selmet’s chemical-etching and milling process waste.

Introduction

Summary of proposed rule changes

DEQ proposes amending Oregon’s hazardous waste regulations in chapter 340, division 101, of the Oregon Administrative Rules. The change will incorporate the delisting of Selmet’s F006 hazardous waste.

Background of reasons for doing this rulemaking

Selmet Inc., located in Albany, Oregon, performs chemical etching and milling in its manufacturing operations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines chemical etching and milling as an electroplating process such that waste from the process is within the scope of the F006 hazardous waste listing. Historically, Selmet managed chemical etching and milling sludge as a non-hazardous industrial waste at a non-hazardous waste Subtitle D landfill. However, in 2017, due to an updated review of chemical etching and milling operations at titanium-casting facilities in Oregon, DEQ notified Selmet that it should handle its chemical etching and milling sludge as F006 listed hazardous waste.

In May 2018, Selmet petitioned DEQ to exclude chemical etching and milling sludge from the F006 listing. This delisting petition includes chemical-etching and milling sludge generated by Selmet’s current process and sludge that Selmet historically accumulated in its on-site evaporation pond.

The hazardous waste constituents for which the EPA lists F006 sludge are cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel and complexed cyanide. Before submitting the delisting petition, Selmet worked with DEQ to develop a sampling and analysis plan to accurately characterize Selmet’s chemical-etching and milling operations and historically accumulated sludge. DEQ provides additional details about Selmet’s sampling and analysis process in the attached Delisting Project Memorandum.

Since November 2017, Selmet has managed the chemical etching and milling sludge as a F006 hazardous waste, at an approximate cost of $25,000 per month. In addition, the process sludge that historically went into the evaporation pond will need to be managed as a listed hazardous waste upon generation during the pond decommissioning. Selmet contends that it is not necessary to manage the chemical-etching and milling sludge or sediment pond sludge as hazardous waste. Selmet asserts the waste does not contain constituents of concern that originally caused EPA to list the waste as an F006 hazardous waste.

Who does this affect?

This proposal affects only Selmet and is specific to the waste generated by Selmet’s Albany facility.

REVIEWERS do not edit or modify this section

Management reviewed and edited this section. It was then published with the Public Notice. Do not modify it except to correct typographical errors.

What need would the proposed rule address?

Selmet is currently managing its chemical-etching and milling sludge as F006 listed hazardous waste. It is very costly for Selmet to manage the waste in this way.

How would the proposed rule address the need?

Selmet would be able to manage chemical etching and milling sludge as non-hazardous industrial waste, significantly reducing their management and disposal costs. The waste can be safely managed in a Subtitle D landfill.

How would the proposed rule address the need?

DEQ will know when Selmet no longer manages the chemical etching and milling sludge as hazardous waste because it will no longer list the waste on its annual hazardous waste management report.

REVIEWERS do not edit or modify this section

Management reviewed and edited this section. It was then published with the Public Notice. Do not modify it except to correct typographical errors.

Lead division

Land Quality

Program or activity

Hazardous Waste Program

Chapter 340 action

Amend

Statutory authority

ORS 466.020 and 466.180

Statute implemented

ORS 466.015 and 466.195

Documents relied on for rulemaking  

REVIEWERS do not edit or modify this section

Management reviewed and edited this section. It was then published with the Public Notice. Do not modify it except to correct typographical errors.

This rulemaking does not involve fees.

Statement of fiscal and economic impact

REVIEWERS do not edit or modify this section

Management reviewed and edited this section. It was then published with the Public Notice. Do not modify it except to correct typographical errors.

Fiscal and Economic Impact

The only negative fiscal impacts from this rulemaking will affect DEQ. Following delisting, Selmet will no longer be required to pay hazardous waste management fees to DEQ in association with the F006 listed hazardous waste. However, DEQ will continue inspection and provide compliance assistance.

Selmet will receive positive fiscal benefits. Since November 2017, Selmet has managed its chemical-etching and milling sludge as a F006 hazardous waste at an approximate monthly cost of $25,000. If the EQC adopts the proposed rule amendments, Selmet will reduce its costs in handling and disposal of the materials that are the subject of this rulemaking.

Statement of Cost of Compliance  

State agencies

The proposed rule will reduce revenue for DEQ’s hazardous waste program. DEQ will no longer require the specific facility these rules affect to pay fees for hazardous waste disposal. In addition, DEQ will receive less fee revenue from the treatment, storage and disposal facility that is currently receiving the hazardous waste.

Local governments

DEQ anticipates there will be no fiscal or economic impact to local governments, as the rule impacts only one site-specific facility.

Public

DEQ anticipates there will be no fiscal or economic impact to the general public.

Large businesses - businesses with more than 50 employees

DEQ anticipates there will be a fiscal or economic impact to one large business that currently receives the F006 hazardous waste for disposal. DEQ is unable to quantify this impact. DEQ has not finalized the 2017 annual hazardous waste generation reporting. DEQ anticipates this will be almost complete by end of October 2018. If EQC adopts the proposed rule amendments, Selmet will reduce its costs in handling and disposal of the materials that are the subject of this rulemaking.

Small businesses – businesses with 50 or fewer employees

a. Estimated number of small businesses and types of businesses and industries with small businesses subject to proposed rule.

DEQ anticipates there will not be adverse impacts on small businesses.

b. Projected reporting, recordkeeping and other administrative activities, including costs of professional services, required for small businesses to comply with the proposed rule.

c. Projected equipment, supplies, labor and increased administration required for small businesses to comply with the proposed rule.

No additional equipment, supplies or labor will be required to comply with these rules.

d. Describe how DEQ involved small businesses in developing this proposed rule.

Documents relied on for fiscal and economic impact

Advisory committee

DEQ did not convene an advisory committee. The proposed rulemaking affects only one specific facility, does not affect any small businesses or the general public, and only has a fiscal impact on DEQ and the petitioner. There will be a public hearing and public comment period to gather public comments on the rulemaking.

Housing cost

As Oregon Revised Statute 183.534 requires, DEQ evaluated whether the proposed rules would have an effect on the development cost of a 6,000-square-foot parcel and construction of a 1,200-square-foot detached, single-family dwelling on that parcel. DEQ determined the proposed rules would have no effect on the development costs because the proposed rules do not have any bearing on housing.

REVIEWERS do not edit or modify this section

Management reviewed and edited this section. It was then published with the Public Notice. Do not modify it except to correct typographical errors.

Relationship to federal requirements

ORS 183.332, 468A.327, and OAR 340-011-0029 require DEQ to attempt to adopt rules that correspond with existing equivalent federal laws and rules unless there are reasons not to do so.

In this case, there is no comparable federal requirement. The proposed rule amendments are not in addition to or different from federal requirements.

Under the state and federal rules cited above, the EPA authorizes DEQ to operate Oregon’s hazardous waste program. The EPA also authorizes Oregon to exempt substances from being classified as F006 listed hazardous substances in Oregon if a petitioner meets the requirements stated in the state and federal rules listed above. This action is consistent with, and DEQ is taking it, under the authority of, federal rules.

REVIEWERS do not edit or modify this section

Management reviewed and edited this section. It was then published with the Public Notice. Do not modify it except to correct typographical errors.

Land-use considerations

In adopting new or amended rules, Oregon Revised Statute 197.180 and Oregon Administrative Rule 340-018-0070 require DEQ to determine whether the proposed rules significantly affect land use. If so, DEQ must explain how the proposed rules comply with statewide land-use planning goals and local acknowledged comprehensive plans.

Under Oregon Administrative Rule 660-030-0005 and 340, division 18, DEQ considers that rules affect land use if:

•  The statewide land use planning goals specifically refer to the rule or program, or

•  The rule or program is reasonably expected to have significant effects on:

◦  Resources, objectives or areas identified in the statewide planning goals, or

◦  Present or future land uses identified in acknowledged comprehensive plans

DEQ determined whether the proposed rules involve programs or actions that affect land use by reviewing its Statewide Agency Coordination plan. This plan describes the DEQ programs that DEQ determined significantly affect land use. DEQ considers that its programs specifically relate to the following statewide goals:

Statewide goals also specifically reference the following DEQ programs:

•  Nonpoint source discharge water quality program – Goal 16

•  Water quality and sewage disposal systems – Goal 16

•  Water quality permits and oil spill regulations – Goal 19

Determination

DEQ determined that these proposed rules do not affect land use under Oregon Administrative Rule 340-018-0030 or DEQ’s State Agency Coordination Program.

Advisory committee

DEQ did not convene an advisory committee. The proposed rulemaking affects only one specific facility, does not affect any small businesses or the general public, and only has a fiscal impact on DEQ and the petitioner. There will be a public hearing to gather public comments on the rulemaking.

Public notice

DEQ provided notice of the proposed rulemaking and rulemaking hearing on Aug. 15, 2018 by:

•  Filing notice with Oregon Secretary of State for publication in the September 2018 Oregon Bulletin

•  Notifying EPA

•  Posting the Notice on the web page for this rulemaking, located at: Delisting Rulemaking Web Page

•  Emailing 10,633 interested parties on the following DEQ lists through GovDelivery:

◦  Rulemaking

◦  Hazardous Waste

•  Emailing the following key legislators required under Oregon Revised Statute 183.335:

◦  Senator Michael Dembrow, Chair, Senate Interim Committee on Environment and Natural Resources

◦  Representative Ken Helm, Chair, House Interim Committee on Energy and Environment

◦  Senator Sara Gelser

◦  Representative Andy Olson

•  Postings on Twitter and Facebook

•  Posting on the DEQ event calendar: DEQ Calendar

•  Publishing notice in the following newspaper:

•  The Albany Democrat Herald  

Request for other options

During the public comment period, DEQ requested public comment on whether to consider other options for achieving the rules’ substantive goals while reducing the rules’ negative economic impact on business. This document includes a summary of comments and DEQ responses.

Public hearings

DEQ heldone one public hearing. DEQ received no comments at the hearing. Later sections of this document include a summary of the two comments received during the open public comment period, DEQ’s responses, and a list of the commenters. Original comments are on file with DEQ.

Presiding Officers’ Record

Hearing 1

     Meeting location: Portland, OR

Meeting date and time: May 18, 2016; 3-5 p.m.

Presiding Officer: Eileen Naples

Staff Presenter(s): Dan Lobato/Seth Sadofsky

The presiding officer convened the hearing, summarized procedures for the hearing, and explained that DEQ was recording the hearing. The presiding officer asked people who wanted to present verbal comments to sign the registration list, or if attending by phone, to indicate their intent to present comments. The presiding officer advised all attending parties interested in receiving future information about the rulemaking to sign up for GovDelivery email notices. The staff presenters gave a brief overview presentation of the proposed rulemaking, followed by a question and answer period.

As Oregon Administrative Rule 137-001-0030 requires, the presiding officer summarized the content of the rulemaking notice.

No person presented any oral testimony or written comments.

Public comment period

DEQ accepted public comment on the proposed rulemaking from August 15, 2018 until 4:00 p.m. on September 21, 2018.

For public comments received by the close of the public comment period, the following table organizes comments into one category with cross references to the commenter number. DEQ’s response follows the summary. Original comments are on file with DEQ.

DEQ did not change the proposed rules in response to comments.Choose the format that suits your information, depending on the number of comments and commenters. If it is helpful, you can include a table like this, listing comments and ID of commenters who made that comment:Option 1:

SELECT ONE OPTION BELOW

Option 2:

Comment 1

A: This delisting proposal is not in the public interest, nor is it justified under RCRA. DEQ was correct in its 2017 determination that Selmet must handle its chemical etching and milling waste (both currently generated and older stockpiled waste) as F006 hazardous waste. Cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel and complexed cyanide are highly toxic wastes, and they should be treated as such to protect public health and the environment. This delisting would be a dangerous precedent, likely to be employed by other generators of hazardous waste. The proposed rule change cites the only this single “need”: shielding Selmet from the costs of proper treatment and disposal. Beside the pollution threats, there is the issue of rewarding a company that seems to have no plans for pollution prevention. This slants the playing field to the advantage of polluters and irrationally punishes companies that implement sustainable production processes. Cross reference to commenter number or numbers submitted in this category using format ##, ##, ## and ##.

ENTER A SUMMARY OF THIS COMMENT CATEGORY.

B: Selmet’s milling waste containing, among other things, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel and complexed cyanide are all well-known toxics that should remain as DEQ determined, F006 hazardous waste. It is an affront that the company should seek an exemption on the basis of merely being costly. Such a delisting would put the risk to public health as secondary to profit, and encourage others to avoid their responsibility to handle hazardous waste responsibly, a dangerous precedent I appreciate and support the 2017 review decision. Proper protection has its costs; Selmet should be denied an easy out. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Response 1

ENTER DEQ’S RESPONSE TO THIS CATEGORY OF COMMENTS.

F006 is a hazardous waste that is derived from a variety of industrial operations and, specific to the Selmet, Inc. delisting, includes wastewater treatment sludge from chemical etching and milling operations.

Hazardous waste generators, including Selmet, have the option to petition the Department of Environmental Quality to exclude, “or delist” their facility’s waste from the list of hazardous waste in Oregon’s Administrative Rules if they can demonstrate that their waste can be safely disposed in a non-hazardous landfill.

Through careful analysis of Selmet’s F006 chemical etching and milling wastewater treatment sludge sampling and analysis material, DEQ has determined that the facility’s waste meets risk-based criteria designed to protect human health and the environment. Selmet can therefore safely dispose their chemical etching and milling waste in a non-hazardous, permitted landfill.

The Selmet F006 delisting petition applies only to the specific waste streams from Selmet’s facility that are described in Selmet’s 2018 delisting petition. This delisting does not apply to other facilities in Oregon. Selmet’s wastewater treatment sludge delisting remains in effect only as long as Selmet maintains the same operating conditions and chemicals described in the delisting petition.

DEQ encourages all Oregon businesses to responsibly manage hazardous waste by eliminating toxic waste and preventing pollution. Preventing waste and pollution before they are generated makes sense for the economy and the environment.

ENTER DEQ’S RESPONSE TO THIS CATEGORY OF COMMENTS.

ADD MORE COMMENTERS BY COPYING AND PASTING ADDITIONAL COMMENTER SECTIONS HERE.

Notification

The proposed rules would become effective upon filing on approximately November 19, 2018mmm, dd, yyyy. DEQ would notify affected parties by:

Describe Notification (PARTIES AND METHOD USED TO PROVIDE NOTICE)

Compliance and enforcement

•  Affected parties -Text

•  DEQ staff - Text

Measuring, sampling, monitoring and reporting

•  Affected parties - Text

•  DEQ staff - Text

Systems

•  Website - Text

•  Database - Text

•  Invoicing - Text

Training

•  Affected parties - Text

•  DEQ staff - Text

Five-year review ORS 183.405

Requirement  

Oregon law requires DEQ to review new rules within five years after EQC adopts them. The law also exempts some rules from review. DEQ determined whether the rules described in this report are subject to the five-year review. DEQ based its analysis on the law in effect when EQC adopted these rules.

Exemption from five-year rule review

DELETE THIS PARAGRAPH IF NO RULES ARE EXEMPT FROM REVIEW:

The Administrative Procedures Act exempts CHOOSE ONE: SOME … ALL of the proposed rules from the five-year review because the proposed rules would:

DELETE ANY THAT DON’T APPLY:

•   Amend or repeal an existing rule. ORS 183.405(4).

DELETE THIS PARAGRAPH IF ANY OF THE RULES ARE EXEMPT FROM REVIEW:

None of these proposed rules are exempt from the five-year review under ORS 183.405(4) and 183.405 (5) of the Administrative Procedures Act.

DELETE THIS PARAGRAPH IF NO RULES ARE SUBJECT TO FIVE YEAR REVIEW:

Five-year rule review required

No later than DATE FIVE YEARS FROM ADOPTION. DEQ will review the newly adopted rules for which ORS 183.405 (1) requires review to determine whether:

•  The rule has had the intended effect

•  The anticipated fiscal impact of the rule was underestimated or overestimated

•  Subsequent changes in the law require that the rule be repealed or amended

•  There is continued need for the rule.

DEQ will use “available information” to comply with the review requirement allowed under ORS 183.405 (2).

DEQ will provide the five-year rule review report to the advisory committee to comply with ORS 183.405 (3)

Draft Rules – With Edits Highlighted

340-101-0004
Exclusions

(1) Residue described in 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(b)(9) is exempted from divisions 100-106 and 109.

(2) Dry cleaning wastewater subject to the requirements in OAR 340 division 124 is not excluded under 40 C.F.R. §§ 261.4(a)(1)(i) and (ii).

(3) The phrase “or labeled with equivalent wording describing the contents of the container and recognizing the exclusion” is added to the end of the first sentence in 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(a)(26)(i) and 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(b)(18)(i).

(4) The phrase “To a municipal solid waste landfill regulated under 40 C.F.R. part 258, including 40 C.F.R. 258.40, or” is deleted from 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(b)(18)(vi)(A).

(5) The phrase “To a municipal waste combustor or other combustion facility regulated under section 129 of the Clean Air Act or” in 40 C.F.R. 261.4(b)(18)(vi)(B) is deleted.

(6) The following wastes are excluded under OAR 340-100-0020 and 340-100-0022:

(a) Wastewater treatment sludge, EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006, generated at Selmet, Inc., Albany, Oregon, and contained in an on-site surface impoundment as described in the delisting petition Selmet, Inc. provided on May 22, 2018. This is a one-time exclusion.

(b) Wastewater treatment sludge, EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006, generated at Selmet, Inc., Albany, Oregon, as described in the delisting petition Selmet, Inc. provided on May 22, 2018. The exemption is limited to a maximum annual rate of 3120 cubic yards per year. Selmet must have the sludge disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill the department licenses, permits, or otherwise authorizes to accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge.

(c) The exemption described in paragraph 6(b) of this rule remains in effect only as long as Selmet meets the following conditions:

(A) Delisting Levels: The constituent concentrations measured in a leachate extract may not exceed the following concentrations (mg/l): cadmium-0.2; chromium-4.9; nickel-32.7; cyanide-7.5 and fluoride-94.8.

(B) Annual Verification Testing: To verify that the waste does not exceed the specified delisting concentrations, Selmet, Inc. must collect and analyze one waste sample annually using methods with appropriate detection concentrations and elements of quality control. Selmet may use a total analysis of the waste to estimate the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure concentration as provided for in section 1.2 of Method 1311.

(d) Changes in Operation Conditions:

(A) If Selmet, Inc., significantly changes the manufacturing process or the chemicals used in the manufacturing process, or both, Selmet must notify the department not more than 30 days after making the change.

(B) Selmet, Inc. must handle the wastes generated after the process change as hazardous until the department notifies Selmet in writing the department has determined the wastes continue to meet the delisting concentrations in subparagraph (6)(c)(A), that Selmet has demonstrated that no new hazardous constituents listed in appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261 have been introduced, and that the department approves Selmet not handling the wastes as hazardous.

(e) Data Submittals: Selmet, Inc. must submit the data obtained through verification testing, or as required by other conditions of this rule, to the department. Selmet must submit the annual verification data and certification of proper disposal on the anniversary of the effective date of this exclusion. Selmet, Inc., must compile, summarize, and maintain on site, for a minimum of five years, records of operating conditions and analytical data. Selmet, Inc. must make these records available to the department for inspection. Selmet, Inc, must submit with all data a signed copy of the certification statement described in 40 C.F.R. § 260.22(i)(12).

(f) Reopener Language:

(A) If, at any time after the delisted waste is disposed of, Selmet, Inc., possesses, or is otherwise made aware of, any data, including but not limited to leachate data, about the delisted waste, indicating that any constituent is at a concentration in the leachate higher than the specified delisting concentration in subparagraph 6(c)(A), then Selmet, Inc., must report such data, in writing, to the department, within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data.

(B) Based on the information described in subsections (6)(d) and 6(e), and any other information received from any source, the department will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires department action to protect human health or the environment. Further action may include suspending or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment.

(C) If the department determines that the reported information does require department action, the department will notify Selmet, Inc., in writing, of the actions the department believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice will include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing Selmet, Inc. with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed department action is not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. Selmet, Inc. must provide to the department in writing its information in response to the notice within 30 days from the date the department mails its notice requesting the information.

(D) The department will issue a final written determination. The department may issue the determination at the later of either 30 days after it mailed notice to Selmet, if Selmet presented no additional information during that interval, or after reviewing any information Selmet submitted during the 30-day interval. The written determination will describe the department actions that are necessary to protect human health and the environment. Any required action described in the department’s determination is effective immediately, unless the department provides otherwise.

Statutory/Other Authority: ORS 192, 465.009, 466.015, 466.020, 466.075, 466.090, 466.180, 468.020 & 646
Statutes/Other Implemented: ORS 466.015, 466.075 & 466.195
History:
DEQ 5-2017, f. & cert. ef. 7-12-17
DEQ 7-1984, f. & ef. 4-26-84; Superseded by DEQ 8-1985; DEQ 8-1985, f. & ef. 7-25-85; DEQ 6-1994, f. & cert. ef. 3-22-94; DEQ 4-1999, f. & cert. ef. 3-19-99; DEQ 10-2000, f. & cert. ef. 7-21-00; DEQ 13-2003, f. & cert. ef. 10-24-03

Division 101

IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

340-101-0004

Exclusions

(1) Residue described in 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(b)(9) is exempted from divisions 100-106 and 109.

(2) Dry cleaning wastewater subject to the requirements in OAR 340 division 124 is not excluded under 40 C.F.R. §§ 261.4(a)(1)(i) and (ii).

(3) The phrase “or labeled with equivalent wording describing the contents of the container and recognizing the exclusion” is added to the end of the first sentence in 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(a)(26)(i) and 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(b)(18)(i).

(4) The phrase “To a municipal solid waste landfill regulated under 40 C.F.R. part 258, including 40 C.F.R. 258.40, or” is deleted from 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(b)(18)(vi)(A).

(5) The phrase “To a municipal waste combustor or other combustion facility regulated under section 129 of the Clean Air Act or” in 40 C.F.R. 261.4(b)(18)(vi)(B) is deleted.

(6) The following wastes are excluded under OAR 340-100-0020 and 340-100-0022:

(a) Wastewater treatment sludge, EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006, generated at Selmet, Inc., Albany, Oregon, and contained in an on-site surface impoundment as described in the delisting petition Selmet, Inc. provided on May 22, 2018. This is a one-time exclusion.

(b) Wastewater treatment sludge, EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006, generated at Selmet, Inc., Albany, Oregon, as described in the delisting petition Selmet, Inc. provided on May 22, 2018. The exemption is limited to a maximum annual rate of 3120 cubic yards per year. Selmet must have the sludge disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill the department licenses, permits, or otherwise authorizes to accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge.

(c) The exemption described in paragraph 6(b) of this rule remains in effect only as long as Selmet meets the following conditions:

(A) Delisting Levels: The constituent concentrations measured in a leachate extract may not exceed the following concentrations (mg/l): cadmium-0.2; chromium-4.9; nickel-32.7; cyanide-7.5 and fluoride-94.8.

(B) Annual Verification Testing: To verify that the waste does not exceed the specified delisting concentrations, Selmet, Inc. must collect and analyze one waste sample annually using methods with appropriate detection concentrations and elements of quality control. Selmet may use a total analysis of the waste to estimate the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure concentration as provided for in section 1.2 of Method 1311.

(d) Changes in Operation Conditions:

(A) If Selmet, Inc., significantly changes the manufacturing process or the chemicals used in the manufacturing process, or both, Selmet must notify the department not more than 30 days after making the change.

(B) Selmet, Inc. must handle the wastes generated after the process change as hazardous until the department notifies Selmet in writing the department has determined the wastes continue to meet the delisting concentrations in subparagraph (6)(c)(A), that Selmet has demonstrated that no new hazardous constituents listed in appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261 have been introduced, and that the department approves Selmet not handling the wastes as hazardous.

(e) Data Submittals: Selmet, Inc. must submit the data obtained through verification testing, or as required by other conditions of this rule, to the department. Selmet must submit the annual verification data and certification of proper disposal on the anniversary of the effective date of this exclusion. Selmet, Inc., must compile, summarize, and maintain on site, for a minimum of five years, records of operating conditions and analytical data. Selmet, Inc. must make these records available to the department for inspection. Selmet, Inc, must submit with all data a signed copy of the certification statement described in 40 C.F.R. § 260.22(i)(12).

(f) Reopener Language:

(A) If, at any time after the delisted waste is disposed of, Selmet, Inc., possesses, or is otherwise made aware of, any data, including but not limited to leachate data, about the delisted waste, indicating that any constituent is at a concentration in the leachate higher than the specified delisting concentration in subparagraph 6(c)(A), then Selmet, Inc., must report such data, in writing, to the department, within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data.

(B) Based on the information described in subsections (6)(d) and 6(e), and any other information received from any source, the department will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires department action to protect human health or the environment. Further action may include suspending or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment.

(C) If the department determines that the reported information does require department action, the department will notify Selmet, Inc., in writing, of the actions the department believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice will include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing Selmet, Inc. with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed department action is not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. Selmet, Inc. must provide to the department in writing its information in response to the notice within 30 days from the date the department mails its notice requesting the information.

(D) The department will issue a final written determination. The department may issue the determination at the later of either 30 days after it mailed notice to Selmet, if Selmet presented no additional information during that interval, or after reviewing any information Selmet submitted during the 30-day interval. The written determination will describe the department actions that are necessary to protect human health and the environment. Any required action described in the department’s determination is effective immediately, unless the department provides otherwise.

Statutory/Other Authority: ORS 192, 465.009, 466.015, 466.020, 466.075, 466.090, 466.180, 468.020 & 646
Statutes/Other Implemented: ORS 466.015, 466.075 & 466.195
History:
DEQ 5-2017, f. & cert. ef. 7-12-17
DEQ 7-1984, f. & ef. 4-26-84; Superseded by DEQ 8-1985; DEQ 8-1985, f. & ef. 7-25-85; DEQ 6-1994, f. & cert. ef. 3-22-94; DEQ 4-1999, f. & cert. ef. 3-19-99; DEQ 10-2000, f. & cert. ef. 7-21-00; DEQ 13-2003, f. & cert. ef. 10-24-03

Delisting Staff Memorandum

(double click to enlarge)

Delisting Staff Memorandum

Staff Memo Table 1

(double click on table to enlarge)

Staff Memo Table 2

(double click on table to enlarge)

Selmet Delisting Petition

(double click to enlarge)

(confidential business information is removed)

Selmet Delisting Petition

Eileen Naples, 2018-09-19T11:30:00Z
TBD. Email to SC on 9/18

Eileen Naples, 2018-09-19T11:30:00Z
TBD

Stephanie Caldera will review this document and assign this number at that time.

GOLDSTEIN Meyer, 2018-09-25T08:26:00Z
You should combine this information into the Overview section and delete this as a separate section.

Eileen Naples, 2018-09-20T14:01:00Z
I’m not sure if this is the right section for this information, but the proposal doesn’t seem to make sense without it.

Eileen Naples, 2018-09-26T09:14:00Z
In a conversation this summer, Stephanie advised that we provide plenty of background context for the EQC. If the EQC reads the Staff Memo and public notice, this information is suplicative. HOWEVER, if they are not guaranteed to read the Public Notice and Staff memo as a part of the review process, then my strong preference is to keep this level of detail in the EQC staff report.

Eileen Naples, 2018-09-21T14:14:00Z
Do we need to address each of these categories?

These are prompts to facilitate writing this section. The overview should not be too detailed or long. Only include what is necessary to introduce the main purpose and need for the rulemaking.

Eileen Naples, 2018-09-21T14:16:00Z
Would supporting documents include the petition and the staff memo? And, if so, would the table on page 5 be more appropriate for this heading?

Eileen Naples, 2018-09-21T14:16:00Z
Should we also link to the proposed rulemaking on the web?

We should attach it just as we did with the notice.

Eileen Naples, 2018-09-19T12:00:00Z
See embedded PDFs – is this the right way to attach for the EQC, or should we include as attachments? The EQC Report is essentially a summary of information in both documents plus comments.

We will send a link to this document to Stephanie Caldera, and send the attachments to her as PDF’s. It will start as a Word document but end up as a PDF. You can’t do attachments to a Word document, or embed documents in a PDF. So we’ll have to send the attachments separately to Stephanie to attach at the end.

Eileen Naples, 2018-09-21T14:18:00Z
Do we need these headings on separate pages? This is too little text for one page.

Eileen Naples, 2018-09-26T10:09:00Z
I don’t think that any of the highlighted pertains to this delisting scenario – is this correct? Or are the headings “EQC Prior Involvement,” “Public Notices” and “Request for other options still relevant”?

Eileen Naples, 2018-09-26T10:34:00Z
Can I put this information in a chart? Without a chart format the information looks sloppy.

Eileen Naples, 2018-09-20T14:36:00Z
I’m not sure that the category comment makes sense in this context because we received limited comments and they both seemed to express a similar sentiment/fall into the same “category”

Eileen Naples, 2018-09-20T15:54:00Z
While these comments use different words, I think they have a very similar message and that the response to each will overlap – should I include them as separate comments with the same response, or use the summary comment?

Eileen Naples, 2018-09-21T11:08:00Z
IS this asking for a date or a notification method?

Eileen Naples, 2018-09-21T11:07:00Z
What part of this section is necessary for our delisting?

Eileen Naples, 2018-09-19T14:55:00Z
Does a delisting fall under the category of amending an existing rule?

Eileen Naples, 2018-09-19T15:10:00Z
Need to embed the staff memo and delisting petition (CBI version)