DOCSLIB.ORG

Chat 40 CFR Parts 260 and 278 28

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 18, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 39331 and its 4-OH metabolite in almonds, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EPA is also establishing recommended rice, wheat and meat, milk, poultry and AGENCY criteria as guidance on the eggs. Petition for tolerances’’ (1984). environmentally protective use of chat 40 CFR Parts 260 and 278 28. Office of Pesticides and Toxic for non-transportation cement and concrete projects. Finally, the Agency is Substances, Memorandum from David [EPA–HQ–RCRA–2006–0097; FRL–8326–1] establishing certification and Ritter to H. Jacoby, ‘‘EPA Reg.No 50534– RIN 2050–AG27 recordkeeping requirements for all chat, 7 Data Call in Submission. except that under the jurisdiction of the Chlorothalonil Registration Standard; Criteria for the Safe and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of review of data’’ (1986). Environmentally Protective Use of Indian Affairs (BIA). The chat covered 29. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, Granular Mine Tailings Known as by this rule is from the lead and zinc and Toxic Substances, Memorandum ‘‘Chat’’ mining areas of Oklahoma, Kansas and from Alan C. Levy to Walter Waldrop/ AGENCY: Environmental Protection Missouri, known as the Tri-State Mining Andrew W. Ertman, ‘‘Chlorothalonil - Agency (EPA). District. DATES: This final rule is effective on Review of 30–Day, 90–Day and One– ACTION: Final rule. Year Dog Studies (Oral Administration, September 17, 2007. Gelatin Capsules)’’ (1996). SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is 30. Health Effects Division, U.S. EPA, Agency (EPA or the Agency) is promulgating mandatory criteria for the approved by the Director of the Federal Data Evaluation Report; Ninety Day Register as of September 17, 2007. Mouse Feeding Study; Technical environmentally protective use of chat ADDRESSES: The public docket for this Chlorothalonil (DS–2787) (1983). in transportation projects carried out, in whole or in part, with Federal funds. final rule, Docket ID No EPA–HQ– 31. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, Specifically, chat used in such RCRA–2006–0097, contains the and Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA, transportation projects will be safe and information related to this rulemaking, Memorandum from Alan C. Levy to environmentally protective if it is used including the response to comment Karen Whitby, ‘‘Chlorothalonil - in asphalt concrete, in slurry seals, document. All documents in the docket Rereview of a Chronic Dog Study and a microsurfacing, or in epoxy seals for are listed in the http:// Developmental Rat Study; Review of a anti-skid on bridge decking. Chat used www.regulations.gov index. Although Dermal Absorption Rat Study’’ (1995). in such transportation projects will also listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, e.g., 32. Office of Pesticides and Toxic meet EPA’s criteria if it is used in Portland cement concrete, flowable fill, Confidential Business Information or Substances, U.S. EPA, Memorandum other information the disclosure of from D. Ritter to Lois Rossi, ‘‘EPA No stabilized base, chip seals, or as road base providing, on a case-by-case basis, which is restricted by statute. Certain 50534–7 - CX, Submission of additional other material, such as copyrighted toxicity data’’ (1988). either: Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP, EPA SW–846 Method material, will be publicly available only 33. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, 1312) tests are conducted on the in hard copy. Publicly available docket and Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA, Health proposed material and the leachate materials are available either Effects Test Guidelines; OPPTS testing results show that concentrations electronically in http:// 870.3800; Reproduction and Fertility in the leachate do not exceed the www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Effects (August 1998). Drinking Water Standards for lead and the EPA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, cadmium and the fresh water chronic Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 34. Health Effects Division, Office of NW., Washington, DC. The Public Pesticide Programs, U.S. EPA, Data National Recommended Water Quality Criterion for zinc of 120 ug/l; or EPA (or Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to Evaluation Record (TXR No: 0052493): 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, Reproduction and Fertility Effects Study a State environmental Agency, if it chooses to do so) has determined, based excluding legal holidays. The telephone - [rat]; Chlorothalonil (1995). number of the Public Reading Room is on a site-specific risk assessment and 202–566–1744, and the telephone 35. Office of Pesticide and Toxic after notice and opportunity for public number to make an appointment to view Substances, U.S. EPA, Memorandum comment, that the releases from the chat the docket is 202–566–0276. from Alan C. Levy to Walter Waldrop/ mixture in its proposed use will not Andrew W. Ertman, ‘‘Chlorothalonil - cause an exceedance of the National FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Two-Generation Reproduction Study in Primary Drinking Water Standards for Stephen Hoffman, U.S. Environmental Rats’’ (1993). lead and cadmium in potential drinking Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania water sources and the fresh water Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20460– List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 chronic National Recommended Water 0002, Mail Code 5306P; telephone number: 703–308–8413; fax number: Environmental protection, Quality Criterion for zinc of 120 ug/l in surface water. Furthermore, this rule 703–308–8686; e-mail address: Administrative practice and procedure, [email protected]. Additional Agricultural commodities, Pesticides also establishes a criterion that other uses of chat will be safe and information on this rulemaking is also and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping available on the internet at http:// requirements. environmentally protective and are acceptable if they are part of, and www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/mining/ Dated: July 1, 2007. otherwise authorized by, a State or chat/. The contents of this final rule are Debra Edwards, Federal response action undertaken in listed in the following outline Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. accordance with Federal or State [FR Doc. E7–13830 Filed 7–17–07; 8:45 am] environmental laws, with consideration Contents of the Final Rule of a site-specific risk assessment. This BILLING CODE 6560–50–S I. General Information rule does not require that chat be sized A. Does This Rule Apply to Me? (dry or wet) prior to its use, as long as B. What Are the Statutory Authorities for this rule’s criteria are complied with. This Final Rule? VerDate Aug<31>2005 10:08 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM 18JYR1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES 39332 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 18, 2007 / Rules and Regulations C. Definitions and Acronyms Used in the listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER warm, and hot mix asphalt, chip seals, Rule INFORMATION CONTACT section. slurry seals, and microsurfacing. The II. Summary of This Rule term ‘asphalt’ is sometimes used B. What Are the Statutory Authorities III. Background Information generically in place of cold, warm, or IV. Rationale for This Rule and Response to for This Final Rule? Comments hot mix asphalt. Through Title VI, Section 6018 of the • Asphalt concrete—a layer, or A. What Was the Process EPA Used to Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Develop This Action? combination of layers, composed of a B. What Criteria Are EPA Establishing for Efficient Transportation Equity Act of compacted mixture of an asphalt binder the Use of Chat? 2005 (HR 3 or ‘‘the Act’’), Congress and mineral aggregate. C. Relationship of This Rule to Other amended Subtitle F of the Solid Waste • Pozzolanic—a siliceous material Federal Regulations and Guidance Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6961 et seq.) by which when combined with calcium D. How Does This Rule Affect Chat Sales adding Sec. 6006. This provision hydroxide in the presence of moisture From Land Administered by BIA or requires the Agency to establish safe exhibits cementitious properties. Directly From Tribal Lands? and environmentally protective criteria • State or Federal response action— E. How Does This Rule Affect CERCLA (including an evaluation of whether to Liability, Records of Decision and State or Federal response action establish a numerical standard for undertaken pursuant to applicable Response Actions? concentrations of lead and other F. How Does This Rule Affect the Use of Federal or State environmental laws and Federal Funds Administered by the U.S. hazardous substances) for the use of with consideration of site-specific risk Department of Transportation for granular mine tailings from the Tar assessments. Transportation Construction Projects? Creek, Oklahoma Mining District, • Raw chat—unmodified lead-zinc V. Impacts of the Final Rule known as ‘chat,’ in cement and concrete ore milling waste that comes from the A. What are the Potential Environmental projects and in transportation Tri-State Mining District. and Public Health Impacts From the Use construction projects that are carried • Washed chat—lead-zinc ore milling of Chat in Transportation Construction out, in whole or in part, using Federal waste that has been wet-screened to Projects? funds. Section 6006(a)(4) requires that B. What are the Economic Impacts? remove the fine-grained fraction and any use of the granular mine tailings in which is sized so as not to pass through VI. State Authority a transportation project that is carried VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews a number 40 sieve (0.425 mm opening A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory out, in whole or in part, using Federal size) or smaller. Planning and Review funds, meet EPA’s established criteria. • Sized chat—lead-zinc ore milling B. Paperwork Reduction Act In establishing such criteria, EPA is waste that has been wet-screened C. Regulatory Flexibility Act required to consider ‘‘the current and (washed) or dry sieved to remove the D.
Recommended publications
  • Past and Present Conditions of the Tri-State Mining District

    Past and Present Conditions of the Tri-State Mining District

    BearWorks MSU Graduate Theses Summer 2020 The Legacy of Mining in Southwest Missouri: Past and Present Conditions of the Tri-State Mining District Anastasia M C McClanahan Missouri State University, [email protected] As with any intellectual project, the content and views expressed in this thesis may be considered objectionable by some readers. However, this student-scholar’s work has been judged to have academic value by the student’s thesis committee members trained in the discipline. The content and views expressed in this thesis are those of the student-scholar and are not endorsed by Missouri State University, its Graduate College, or its employees. Follow this and additional works at: https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses Part of the Environmental Chemistry Commons, Environmental Health and Protection Commons, Environmental Monitoring Commons, Environmental Public Health Commons, Geochemistry Commons, Geology Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Other Earth Sciences Commons, Other Environmental Sciences Commons, Soil Science Commons, Sustainability Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation McClanahan, Anastasia M C, "The Legacy of Mining in Southwest Missouri: Past and Present Conditions of the Tri-State Mining District" (2020). MSU Graduate Theses. 3556. https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/3556 This article or document was made available through BearWorks, the institutional repository of Missouri State University. The work contained in it may be protected by
  • FINAL PROPOSED PLAN for PUBLIC REVIEW OPERABLE UNIT 4 - Chat Piles, Other Mine and Mill Waste, and Smelter Waste TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OTTAWA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

    FINAL PROPOSED PLAN for PUBLIC REVIEW OPERABLE UNIT 4 - Chat Piles, Other Mine and Mill Waste, and Smelter Waste TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OTTAWA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

    FINAL PROPOSED PLAN FOR PUBLIC REVIEW OPERABLE UNIT 4 - Chat Piles, Other Mine and Mill Waste, and Smelter Waste TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OTTAWA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 6 (INTERNAL USE ONLY) EPA ANNOUNCES PROPOSED PLAN EPA’s Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 4 (OU4) - Chat Piles, Other Mine and Mill Waste, and Smelter Waste1 - identifies the Preferred Alternative for addressing environmental hazards from past mining operations at the Tar Creek Superfund Site (the “Site”). This Proposed Plan is issued by the EPA and reflects input provided by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (the “Quapaw Tribe”), and the ten downstream Tribes with an interest in this site. This plan is available on the internet at: www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6sf/6sf- decisiondocs.htm. The EPA will select a final remedy for OU4 after considering all information submitted during a 30-day public comment period. Attachment 1 provides a Comment Sheet to provide the EPA with comments during the public comment period. The EPA may modify the Preferred Alternative or select another response action for OU4 based on new information or public comments. The public is encouraged to comment on the alternative presented in this Proposed Plan or to suggest other alternatives. A glossary is included at the end of this document to define key terms. Under the EPA guidance entitled Presumptive Remedy for Metals-in-Soil Sites (EPA, 1999a), the suggested presumptive remedy, in the appropriate circumstances, for low- level threat metals-in-soil waste that is not targeted for treatment is containment in place [see 9355.0-72FS at pp.
  • Tri-State Transition Zone Assessment Study Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma

    Tri-State Transition Zone Assessment Study Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma

    Tri-State Transition Zone Assessment Study Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma March 2013 Prepared by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office, Tulsa, OK. Reviewed by: Trustee Councils of Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Contaminants of Primary Concern.............................................................................. 2 1.3 EPA Remedial Actions to Address Remediation of Transition Zones ....................... 3 1.4 Study Area and Sampling Description ........................................................................ 5 1.5 Study Area and Sampling Description ........................................................................ 6 2.0 Materials and Methods ......................................................................................7 2.1 Land Use Selection ..................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Sample Collection and Analysis ................................................................................. 7 2.2.1 Field Collection ........................................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Sample Analysis.........................................................................................................
  • In the United States Court of Federal Claims

    In the United States Court of Federal Claims

    In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 13-51X (Filed: December 3, 2019) ************************************** * THOMAS CHARLES BEAR, et al., * Congressional Reference; Hearing Claimants, * Officer Report; 28 U.S.C. § 1492; 28 v. * U.S.C. § 2509; RCFC Appendix D; * Indian Trust; Land Use; Quapaw THE UNITED STATES, * Nation. Defendant. * ************************************** * Nancie G. Marzulla, with whom were Roger J. Marzulla, Marzulla Law, LLC, Washington, D.C., Stephen R. Ward, Daniel E. Gomez, R. Daniel Carter, and C. Austin Birnie, Conner & Winters, LLP, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for the Quapaw Nation and certain individual claimants. Terry J. Barker, with whom were Joseph C. Woltz and Robert N. Lawrence, Barker Woltz & Lawrence, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for certain individual claimants. Brian M. Collins, with whom were Jean E. Williams, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Frank J. Singer, Rebecca Jaffe, Guillermo Montero, Anthony P. Huang, Environmental Division, Natural Resources Section, United States Department of Justice, Kenneth Dalton, Karen Boyd, Ericka Howard, Dondrae Maiden, Shani L. Walker, Office of the Solicitor, United States Department of the Interior, and Thomas Kearns, Office of the Chief Counsel, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, United States Department of the Treasury, Washington, D.C., for Defendant. REPORT OF THE HEARING OFFICER WHEELER, Hearing Officer: On May 30, 2012, Congressman Tom Cole of Oklahoma submitted to the United States House of Representatives H.R. 5862, entitled “A Bill Relating to members of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (O-Gah-Pah).” The bill provided that: Pursuant to the findings and conclusions contained in the Report issued by the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of money not otherwise appropriated, to members of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (O-Gah-Pah), the sum of $ _______, and to the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (O-Gah-Pah), the sum of $ _______.
  • December 2018 (Pdf)

    December 2018 (Pdf)

    Minutes ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS COMMITTEE MEETING Call To Order A meeting of the Environmental Concerns Committee was held in Gould Hall on December 13th, 2018. It began at 9:02 AM and was presided by Burr Millsap. Attendees Voting Members in Attendance: Tammy McCuen and Kolt Vaughn Ex-Officio Members in Attendance: Sarah Ballew, Dorothy Flowers, Jason Hancock, Brian Holderread, Burr Millsap, Bob Nairn, Randy Peppler, and Jeremi Wright. Agenda Items I. Introduction Our guest presenter this month is Dr. Bob Nairn. Dr. Nairn is a David L. Boren Professor and Viersen Presidential Professor within the School of Civil Engineering and Science as well as the Director of the Center for Restoration of Ecosystems and Watersheds (CREW). A moment was taken to introduce Dr. Nairn as well as all in attendance of the meeting. II. Guest Presentation – Dr. Nairn: A Decade of Successful Performance: Exotoxic Metal Retention in Ecologically Engineered Passive Treatment System Contributes to Stream Recovery The Tar Creek Superfund site is located in Ottawa County, Oklahoma. A superfund is a contaminated site that exists due to hazardous waste being dumped, left out in the open, or otherwise improperly managed. The Tar Creek Superfund site is part of the larger Tri-State Lead Zinc Mining district that existed in the areas of northeast Oklahoma, southeast Kansas, and southwest Missouri. Today, the mining district is composed of a total of four Superfund Sites: the Cherokee County Site, Cherokee County, Kansas; the Orongo-Duenweg Site, Jasper County, Missouri; the Newton County Mine Tailings Site, Newton County, Missouri; and the Tar Creek Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma.
  • Assessment Plan for Tar Creek, Ottawa County, Oklahoma Draft Report

    Assessment Plan for Tar Creek, Ottawa County, Oklahoma Draft Report

    Assessment Plan for Tar Creek, Ottawa County, Oklahoma Draft Report Prepared for: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs State of Oklahoma, Department of Environmental Quality State of Oklahoma, Department of Wildlife Conservation and Seneca-Cayuga, Miami, Wyandotte, Eastern Shawnee, Ottawa, Peoria, and Cherokee Tribes Prepared by: Stratus Consulting Inc. PO Box 4059 Boulder, CO 80306-4059 August 1, 2008 SC11112 Contents List of Figures............................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................v Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... vi Chapter 1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Site Description.................................................................................................... 1-4 1.2 Operational History.............................................................................................. 1-4 1.3 Potentially Responsible Parties............................................................................ 1-5 1.4 Remediation History............................................................................................ 1-6 1.5 Natural Resource
  • 4 A.2 Damage Survey of the Picher, OK Tornado: 10 May 2008

    4 A.2 Damage Survey of the Picher, OK Tornado: 10 May 2008

    4 A.2 Damage Survey of the Picher, OK Tornado: 10 May 2008 Timothy P. Marshall* Haag Engineering Co. Dallas, TX 1. Introduction On 10 May 2008, a large tornado struck Picher, Oklahoma, a small town in the northeast part of the state (Fig. 1). Within days after the event, the author conducted ground and aerial damage surveys of the town. Detailed house-by-house damage assessments were performed and degrees of damage (DOD) were correlated with vehicle damage. Similar damage surveys have been completed by Marshall et al. (2008a, b, and c) after other tornadoes. The Picher tornado destroyed a large number of manufactured homes. Two failure modes were discovered in the anchoring systems: 1) removal of the anchor heads, and 2) failure of the galvanized steel straps securing the steel undercarriages. This paper will present the results of the damage survey. 2. Weather Situation This was a classic severe weather day for Figure 1. Large tornado moving through Picher, northeast Oklahoma. Morning satellite imagery Oklahoma. Photograph courtesy of Donna Young. showed persistent high clouds over the region but an approaching dry slot would bring clear skies later in the day. A dryline was expected to move rapidly eastward enhancing low-level lift. Most unstable convective available potential energies (MUCAPEs) of 2000 j/kg were forecasted by the North American Model (NAM) over northeast Oklahoma by 0000 UTC. At 1200 UTC on 10 May 2008, there was a trough of low heights at 500 mb that extended from central Wyoming, through Colorado, and into central New Mexico (Fig. 2).