These amendments to 6 CCR 1007-3, Part 101, Part 261
Appendix IX, and §
§ 264.1080, 265.1080 and 265.1082 are made
pursuant to the authority granted to the Hazardous Waste Commission in §
25-15-302(2),
C.R.S.
Amendment of Part 261 Appendix IX to Conditionally
Delist F006 Hazardous Waste Generated by NTI A Division of Colorado Springs
Circuits Inc.
Appendix IX of Part 261 is being amended at this time to
conditionally delist F006 hazardous waste generated at NTI, A Division of
Colorado Springs Circuits, Inc. ("NTI") in Colorado Springs, Colorado. This
delisting will allow NTI to dispose of its waste at a Solid Waste Landfill
which meets the requirements of the Colorado Solid Waste Regulations 6 CCR
1007-2, provided it complies with the conditions of the delisting.
NTI operates a commercial electroplating operation located
in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The facility generates a wastewater sludge which
is classified as a F006 listed hazardous waste. The F006 hazardous waste
listing in § 261.31 describes wastewater treatment sludge that is
generated from electroplating operations. The basis for each hazardous waste
listing is described in Appendix VII of Part 261. Each listing is based on
hazardous constituents which are generally contained in wastes described by the
listing. The hazardous constituents which formed the basis for the F006 listing
include cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and cyanide (complexed).
The wastewater treatment system at the plant handles
approximately 60,000 gallons of wastewater a day producing a dry sludge weight
of approximately 14 tons per month. Industrial wastewater produced from the
electroplating operation at the facility is collected by containment trenches
which flow to large holding tanks. Wastewater proceeds through a series of
processes in which the pH is adjusted, and metals are precipitated out with a
reducing agent. The metals are then filtered out and concentrated using a
microfiltration device and concentrate tank. Ultimately, the concentrated
solids are processed through a filter press to remove the liquid and form the
F006 sludge cake.
Analytical sampling of the F006 sludge was conducted prior
to the submission of the waste delisting petition. The electroplating process
does not significantly change on a day-to-day basis. The collected samples
adequately represent the waste stream. The Hazardous Materials and Waste
Management Division at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(the Division), evaluated the sampling results and the request for petitioning
of the waste in accordance with § 260.22. This evaluation was provided to
the Commission.
The results of the waste sampling indicated that the waste
did not contain detectable concentrations of either cadmium or cyanide. The
results of the analysis did indicate that the waste contained detectable
concentrations of both nickel and chromium. However, based on health based risk
assessment calculations derived using the general assumptions outlined in the
Division' s current risk assessment policy, the waste did not contain
concentrations of these constituents at levels which would be considered
harmful to human health or the environment.
Analytical sampling of the waste also indicated that the
waste contained detectable concentrations of arsenic, lead, mercury, and
copper. Based on health based risk assessment calculations and average
background soil conditions, the Division determined that the waste did not
contain concentrations of lead, mercury, or arsenic at levels which would be
considered harmful to human health or the environment. However, the results of
the health based risk assessment indicated that the concentration of copper in
the waste did pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment if
humans were directly exposed to the waste in a residential setting. Although
the assessment showed that the level of copper in the waste was too high to
support an unconditional delisting of the waste, further evaluation of the
physical and chemical nature of the waste indicated that the waste did not pose
an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment if subject to certain
conditions regarding its handling and disposal in a solid waste
landfill.
The potential for constituents in the waste to leach out
and contaminate groundwater was evaluated by the Division using TCLP analytical
tests which measure the maximum potential for constituents to be released from
the waste. The results of the TCLP analysis indicated that none of the
hazardous constituents in the waste showed any chemical potential to leach out
of the waste, and that nickel and copper in the waste showed only small
potentials to be leached from the waste which are adequately protected against
in a solid waste landfill setting.
Further, the results of the waste sampling indicated that
the waste sludge does not contain any organic constituents. Consideration of
the potential health effects caused by exposure to these constituents was
therefore not considered in evaluating the petition by the Division. This
delisting is being granted under conditions which specify disposal
requirements, specify recordkeeping requirements, and storage requirements for
the delisted sludge. Conditional delisting of the waste also prohibits any
major changes to the electroplating process or wastewater treatment process
without prior notification, evaluation, and approval by the Division.
This delisting does not apply to waste which demonstrates
"significant changes" as defined in Delisting #002 in Part 261, Appendix
IX-Wastes excluded under § 260.20 and § 260.22(d), or if any of the
conditions specified in Part 261, Appendix IX for this delisting are not met.
Should either of these occur, the waste is and must be managed as a hazardous
waste. While the Division has approved a conditional delisting for this
specific waste at this specific site, the findings and criteria associated with
the approval are unique. Other petitions for delisting, even if similar in
material or use, will be reviewed by the Division on a case-by-case
basis.
Organic Air Emission Standards for Tanks Surface
Impoundment and Containers-Postponement of the Effective Date
Colorado currently operates an authorized hazardous waste
management program under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. sections
6901 to
6992. The state's program is
equivalent to and consistent with the federal hazardous waste program
established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA") pursuant
to RCRA. To maintain its authorization to operate its state program in lieu of
the U.S. EPA operating a federal program, Colorado must adopt state
requirements equivalent to and consistent with the overlying federal
requirements. Further, while the state has the authority to be more stringent
than the federal program, only where there has been a clear state need to
address a specific hazardous waste management issue in Colorado has the
Hazardous Waste Commission adopted state program requirements which are more
stringent than the overlying federal requirements.
At the April 18, 1995 Hazardous Waste Commission meeting
the Commission adopted air standards that apply to owners and operators of
permitted hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDF) and
certain hazardous waste generators accumulating waste on-site in RCRA
permit-exempt tanks and containers. The air emission standards adopted by the
Commission were intended to be and were equivalent to the federal air emission
standards adopted by the U.S. EPA. In adopting the state air emission standards
the Commission relied in large part upon the basis expressed by the U.S. EPA in
adopting the federal air emission standards. The effective date for both the
state and federal air emission standards was to be December 6, 1995.
On November 13, 1995, the U.S. EPA postponed the effective
date of the federal air emission standards until June 6, 1996. (60 FR 56952).
The Hazardous Waste Commission held an emergency rulemaking hearing on November
28, 1995 to extend the effective date of the state air emission standards for
90 days or until a final rule-making hearing could be held. A final rulemaking
hearing was held on January 16, 1996 and the six month extension of the state
air emission standards, until June 6, 1996, was formally adopted.
On June 5, 1996, the U.S. EPA issued another delay to the
effective date of the federal Subpart CC air emission standards. The new
effective date will be October 6, 1996 for all provisions of the standards,
including the applicability of Part 265, Subparts AA, BB, and CC to 90-day
accumulations units at hazardous waste generators, the applicability of
subparts AA, BB, and CC to RCRA permitted units, and the applicability of the
final standards to tanks in which waste stabilization activities are performed.
All other compliance dates for the air emission standards remain as published
in the December 6, 1994 final rule (59 FR 62896).
This extension of the federal effective date has again
created the situation where, if the state effective date is not extended, the
state program will inadvertently become more stringent than the federal
program. The Commission believes that requiring compliance with the state air
emission standards before any overlying federal effective date places an
unnecessary burden upon the regulated community in Colorado. The creation of
such a situation was not the intent of the Commission in originally
promulgating the state air emission standards.
To maintain state consistency with the federal
environmental requirements, the Commission held an emergency rulemaking hearing
on June 5, 1996 and extended the effective date of the state air emission
standards as adopted at its January 16, 1996 hearing for a period of 90 days or
until a final rulemaking could be held.
At its rulemaking hearing on August 20, 1996, this rule was
again considered by the Commission to make permanent the final effective date
of October 6, 1996. At that hearing, however, the Commission received
information from the Division indicating that it is likely that the EPA will
again extend the effective date of the federal rule, or will propose
substantive amendments to the rule. These amendments are anticipated to provide
certain compliance options for waste determination procedures and for container
standards that are not currently available. In addition, these revisions would
reduce the monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements for affected
tanks, surface impoundments, and containers. The Commission, therefore, decided
to not adopt an effective date for the rule, preferring instead to wait until
EPA has taken final action. Once EPA has taken final action, the Commission
will notice and conduct a rule-making hearing to consider any amendments to the
rule that may be necessary and to adopt an effective date for the rule.
Part 101 Compliance Advisory Process
The amendments to Part 101 of the Colorado Hazardous Waste
Regulations, 6 CCR 1007-3, are adopted by the Hazardous Waste Commission
pursuant to section
25-15-302 of the Colorado
Hazardous Waste Act.
These amendments to Part 101 include recommendations made
by the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division and the Part 101
Critical Review Team to adopt a new Compliance Advisory process for Department
enforcement actions. The amendment also include necessary conforming amendments
to the Regulations to reflect changes made in 1992 to the Colorado Hazardous
Waste Act.
As part of a department-wide initiative, Critical Review
Teams ("CRTs") were formed to review all existing regulations for the purpose
of determining whether the regulations are necessary or if the same goals could
be accomplished in a non-regulatory manner. All CRTs, including the Part 101
CRT, consist of representatives from the affected Division, the regulated
community and the public. An effort was also made to include a team member from
outside of the affected area to provide a fresh perspective on the issues under
review.
The Part 101 CRT's review focused on the effectiveness and
timeliness of the various mechanisms set forth in the existing Part 101
enforcement process by the Division, including warning letters, notices of
violations and various forms of compliance orders, and the opportunity for
establishing some compliance assistance mechanisms for the regulated
community.
The new Compliance Advisories replace warning letters and
notices of violation and are intended to be issued at the time of the
inspection where possible or shortly thereafter.
This new process is intended to reduce the time between the
inspection and the facility's notification of possible compliance issues,
including violations of the Act and the Regulations, thereby leading to more
timely resolution of compliance issues and compliance with the requirements of
the Act and the Regulations. In most cases, the issuance of a Compliance
Advisory should precede the issuance of a compliance order or the filing of a
civil enforcement action by the Department. However, the Commission recognizes
that there will be instances where the Division will need to proceed directly
to the issuance of a compliance order or the filing of a civil enforcement
action. The amendments to Part 101 allow the Division to issue a compliance
order or file a civil enforcement action without issuing a Compliance Advisory.
No substantive changes were suggested or adopted regarding the issuance of
compliance orders or the filing of civil enforcement actions by the
Division.
The Compliance Advisory process also provides increased
opportunities for the Division to provide more effective compliance assistance
to the regulated community, both at the time of the inspection and after the
issuance of a compliance order. In fact, the Compliance Advisory process
includes provisions which allow the Division and the regulated community to
agree at the time of the inspection to the actions that need to be taken and
the time frames for compliance with the Act and the Regulations.
Providing the regulated community with earlier notice of
possible compliance problems and more compliance assistance should promote the
Division' s and the regulated community' s efforts to achieve full compliance
with the requirements of the Hazardous Waste Act and its implementing
regulations in a more timely, cooperative and efficient manner.
After the issuance of a compliance advisory the recipient
should also be provided timely notice whenever the Division determines that
there were no violations of state hazardous waste requirements or that
compliance with some or all of the violations addressed in the Compliance
Advisory have been achieved. In that regard, No Violation or No Further Action
letters should be sent as soon as possible after the Division has made such
determinations. In addition, a No Further Action letter should also contain a
statement informing the person of the possibility of administrative or civil
penalties for the violations of state hazardous waste requirements addressed in
the Compliance Advisory and, where a decision on penalties has been made, the
Division should indicate whether it will be seeking penalties for the
violations addressed in the Compliance Advisory.
As part of the rule-making proceeding for the adoption of
the amendments to Part 101, the Commission reviewed the Compliance Advisory
form developed by the Division and a copy is attached hereto. The Division
intends on using the form, or a similar document, in its implementation of the
amendments to Part 101. The Commission believes that the form, and the
information contained therein, is consistent with its intent in adopting the
amendments to Part 101, including the distinction drawn by the form between
regulatory "Deficiencies," "Potential Deficiencies" and "Concerns Noted." The
Commission also recognizes that, if the Compliance Advisory is issued at the
time of an inspection, the Division will request that the person sign the
Compliance Advisory to acknowledge its contents and receipt. Such a signature,
however, is not and is not to be construed as an admission on behalf of the
person that any violations of state hazardous waste requirements have occurred.
The attachment of the form is not intended to preclude the Division from making
modifications to the form necessary for the implementation of the compliance
advisory process as long as it is not contrary to the intent of the Commission
in adopting the amendments to Part 101.
It should be noted that regardless of which compliance
advisory or enforcement action is taken, the Division will continue to leave a
copy of its notice of inspection with the facility.
Click to view
image
Click to view
image
Statement of Basis and Purpose - Rule-making Hearing
of November 19, 1996
Notes
6 CCR 1007-3-8.26
37
CR 24, December 25, 2014, effective 3/2/2015
38
CR 11, June 10, 2015, effective 6/30/2015
39
CR 05, March 10, 2016, effective
3/30/2016
39
CR 11, June 10, 2016, effective
6/30/2016
40
CR 06, March 25, 2017, effective
4/14/2017
40
CR 11, June 10, 2017, effective
6/30/2017
40
CR 21, November 10, 2017, effective
11/30/2017
41
CR 06, March 25, 2018, effective
4/14/2018
41
CR 11, June 10, 2018, effective
6/30/2018
41
CR 24, December 25, 2018, effective
1/14/2019
42
CR 06, March 25, 2019, effective
4/14/2019
42
CR 06, March 25, 2019, effective
5/30/2019
42
CR 11, June 10, 2019, effective
6/30/2019
43
CR 12, June 25, 2020, effective
7/15/2020
44
CR 06, March 25, 2021, effective
4/14/2021
44
CR 11, June 10, 2021, effective
6/30/2021
44
CR 24, December 25, 2021, effective
1/14/2022
45
CR 11, June 10, 2022, effective
6/30/2022
45
CR 17, September 10, 2022, effective
9/10/2022
45
CR 17, September 10, 2022, effective
9/30/2022
45
CR 23, December 10, 2022, effective
1/30/2023
