[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 69 (Monday, April 10, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18918-18925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8152]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-6570-2]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is granting a petition submitted by Rhodia, Inc.
(Rhodia), to exclude from hazardous waste control (or delist) a certain
solid waste. This action responds to the petition originally submitted
by Rhodia to delist the Filter Cake Sludge on a ``generator specific''
basis from the lists of hazardous waste.
After careful analysis, the EPA has concluded that the petitioned
waste is not hazardous waste when disposed of in subtitle D landfills/
surface impoundments. This exclusion applies to Filter Cake Sludge
generated at Rhodia's Houston, Texas facility. Accordingly, this final
rule excludes the petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous
waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) when disposed of in subtitle D landfills/surface impoundments
but imposes testing conditions to ensure that the future-generated
wastes remain qualified for delisting.
[[Page 18919]]
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 2000.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this final rule is located at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202, and is available for viewing in the EPA Freedom of
Information Act review room on the 7th floor from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (214)
665-6444 for appointments. The reference number for this docket is ``F-
99-TXDEL-RHODIA.'' The public may copy material from any regulatory
docket at no cost for the first 100 pages and at a cost of $0.15 per
page for additional copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact Bill
Gallagher, at (214) 665-6775. For technical information concerning this
document, contact James Harris, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, (214) 665-8302.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA finalizing?
B. Why is EPA approving this delisting?
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
D. How will Rhodia manage the waste if it is delisted?
E. When is the final delisting exclusion effective?
F. How does this action affect states?
II. Background
A. What is a delisting petition?
B. What regulations allow facilities to delist a waste?
C. What information must the generator supply?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Data
A. What wastes did Rhodia petition EPA to delist?
B. How much wastes did Rhodia propose to delist?
C. How did Rhodia sample and analyze the waste data in this
petition?
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
Were Public Comments Submitted on the Proposed Rule?
V. Regulatory Impact
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
IX. Congressional Review Act
X. Executive Order 12875
XI. Executive Order 13045
XII. Executive Order 13084
XIII. National Technology Transfer and Advancements Act
XIV. Executive Order 13132 Federalism
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?
The EPA is finalizing the decision to grant Rhodia's petition to
have their Filter Cake Sludge excluded, or delisted, from the
definition of a hazardous waste.
After evaluating the petition, EPA proposed, on December 10, 1999
to exclude Rhodia's waste from the lists of hazardous wastes under
Secs. 261.31 and 261.32 (see 64 FR 8278).
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Delisting?
Rhodia petitioned to exclude the Filter Cake Sludge treatment
residues because it does not believe that the petitioned waste meets
the criteria for which it was listed.
Rhodia also believes that the waste does not contain any other
constituents that would render it hazardous. Review of this petition
included consideration of the original listing criteria, as well as the
additional listing criteria and the additional factors required by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. See, section 222
of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)-(4).
For reasons stated in both the proposal and this document, EPA
believes that Rhodia' Filter Cake Sludge should be excluded from
hazardous waste control. The EPA therefore is granting a final
exclusion to Rhodia, located in Houston, Texas for its Filter Cake
Sludge.
C. What Are the Limits of This Exclusion?
This exclusion applies to the waste described in the petition only
if the requirements described in Table 1 of part 261 and the conditions
contained herein are satisfied. The maximum annual volume of the Filter
Cake Sludge is 1,200 cubic yards.
D. How Will Rhodia Manage the Waste if It Is Delisted?
Rhodia currently disposes of the petitioned waste (filter-cake
Sludge) generated at its facility in off-site, RCRA permitted Treatment
Storage or Disposal facilities which are not owned/operated by Rhodia.
If the waste is delisted it will be disposed of in a subtitle ``D''
landfill.
E. When Is The Final Delisting Exclusion Effective?
This rule is effective April 10, 2000. 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. That is the
case here because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the
existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes. These
reasons also provide a basis for making this rule effective
immediately, upon publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
F. How Does This Action Affect States?
Because EPA is issuing today's exclusion under the Federal RCRA
delisting program, only States subject to Federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This would exclude two categories of
States: States having a dual system that includes Federal RCRA
requirements and their own requirements, and States who have received
our authorization to make their own delisting decisions.
We allow states to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory
requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of
RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that
prohibits a Federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the State.
Because a dual system (that is, both Federal (RCRA) and State (non-
RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's waste, we urge petitioners
to contact the State regulatory authority to establish the status of
their wastes under the State law.
The EPA has also authorized some States (for example, Louisiana,
Georgia, Illinois) to administer a delisting program in place of the
Federal program, that is, to make State delisting decisions. Therefore,
this exclusion does not apply in those authorized States. If Rhodia
transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any State
with delisting authorization, Rhodia must obtain delisting
authorization from that State before they can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in the State.
II. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition?
A delisting petition is a request from a generator to EPA or
another agency with jurisdiction to exclude from the list of hazardous
wastes, wastes the generator does not consider hazardous under RCRA.
B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To Delist a Waste?
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition the EPA to
remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding them from
the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Secs. 261.31 and 261.32.
Specifically, section 260.20 allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through
265 and 268 of Title 40 of the
[[Page 18920]]
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Section 260.22 provides generators
the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a
``generator-specific'' basis from the hazardous waste lists.
C. What Information Must the Generator Supply?
Petitioners must provide sufficient information to EPA to allow the
EPA to determine that the waste to be excluded does not meet any of the
criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In
addition, the Administrator must determine, where he/she has a
reasonable basis to believe that factors (including additional
constituents), other than those for which the waste was listed, could
cause the waste to be a hazardous waste, that such factors do not
warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Data
A. What Waste Did Rhodia Petition EPA To Delist?
On November 4, 1997, Rhodia petitioned the EPA to exclude from the
lists of hazardous waste contained in Secs. 261.31 and 261.32, a waste
by-product (Filter-Cake Sludge) which falls under the classification of
listed waste because of the ``derived from'' rule in RCRA 40 CFR
260.3(c)(2)(i). Specifically, in its petition, Rhodia, Incorporated,
located in Houston, Texas, requested that EPA grant an exclusion for
1,200 cubic yards per year of filter-cake sludge resulting from its
treatment process which treats listed hazardous waste. The resulting
waste is also listed, in accordance with Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(i) (i.e., the
``derived from'' rule).
The waste codes of the constituents of concern are EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers D001-D043, F001-F012, F019, F024, F025, F032, F034, F037-
F039, K002-004, K006-K011, K013-K052, K060-K062, K064-K066, K069, K071,
K073, K083-K088, K090-K091, K093-K118, K123-K126, K131-K133, K136,
K141-K145, K147-K151, K156-K161, P001-P024, P026-P031, P033-P034, P036-
P051, P054, P056-P060, P062-P078, P081-P082, P084-P085, P087-P089,
P092-P116, P118-P123, P127-P128, P185, P188-P192, P194, P196-P199,
P201-P205, U001-U012, U014-U039, U041-U053, U055-U064, U066-U099, U101-
U103, U105-U138, U140-U174, U176-U194, U196-U197, U200-U211, U213-U223,
U225-U228, U234-U240, U243-U244, U246-U249, U271, U277-U280, U328,
U353, U359, U364-U367, U372-U373, U375-U379, U381-U396, U400-U404,
U407, U409-U411.
B. How Much Waste Did Rhodia Propose To Delist?
Specifically, in its petition, Rhodia requested that EPA grant a
standard exclusion for 1,200 cubic yards of Filter Cake Sludge
generated per calender year.
C. How Did Rhodia Sample and Analyze the Waste Data in This Petition?
In support of its petition, which included the sampling and
analysis plan, Rhodia analyzed the samples for the complete list of
constituents included in 40 CFR part 264, appendix IX and the
additional parameters for waste common to the petrochemical, oil and
gas industries. The analyses was performed using EPA-approved methods.
The analytical parameters and methods are provided in Table I.
Table I.--Analytical Parameters and Methods
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Matrix Method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GC/MS BNA, App IX List.................. Solid................................ SW846 Method 8270.
GC/MS VOA, App IX List.................. Solid................................ SW846 Method 8240.
Metals--App IX List..................... Solid................................ SW846 Methods 6010/7000 Series.
Herbicides--App IX List................. Solid................................ SW846 Method 8150.
Pesticide/PCB, App IX List.............. Solid................................ SW846 Method 8080.
Organophosporus Pesticides, App IX List. Solid................................ SW846 Method 8140.
Sulfide................................. Solid................................ EPA 376.1.
Cyanide, Total.......................... Solid................................ SW846, Method 9010.
Dioxin/Furan--App IX List............... Solid................................ SW846 Method 8280.
TCLP--40 CFR 261.24 List, and Nickel.... Solid................................ SW846 Method 1311.
Neutral Leach Cyanide................... Solid................................ SW846 Method 1311 (Modified).
Oil & Grease............................ Solid................................ EPA 413.1.
Reactive Cyanide........................ Solid................................ SW 846 Chapter 7.3.3.2.
Reactive Sulfide........................ Solid................................ SW846 Chapter 7.3.4.2.
Flash Point Closed Cup.................. Solid................................ SW846 Method 1010.
pH...................................... Solid................................ SW846 Method 9045.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Rhodia performed TCLP analyses for specific constituents detected in the total analyses for a given
sample.
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
Were Public Comments Submitted on the Proposed Rule?
No public comments were received.
V. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory
actions.
The proposal to grant an exclusion is not significant, since its
effect, if promulgated, would be to reduce the overall costs and
economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. This
reduction would be achieved by excluding waste generated at a specific
facility from EPA's lists of hazardous wastes, thus enabling a facility
to manage its waste as nonhazardous.
Because there is no additional impact from today's proposed rule,
this proposal would not be a significant regulation, and no cost/
benefit assessment is required. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has also exempted this rule from the requirement for OMB review
under section (6) of Executive Order 12866.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under 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 which describes the impact of
the rule on small entities (that is, small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). No regulatory
flexibility analysis is required, however, if the Administrator or
delegated representative certifies that the rule will not have any
impact on a small entities.
[[Page 18921]]
This rule, if promulgated, will not have an adverse economic impact
on small entities since its effect would be to reduce the overall costs
of EPA's hazardous waste regulations and would be limited to one
facility. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this proposed regulation,
if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This regulation, therefore, does
not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated
with this proposed rule have been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980 (Pub. L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned
OMB Control Number 2050-0053.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995,
EPA generally must prepare a written statement for rules with Federal
mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local, and tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year.
When such a statement is required for EPA rules, under section 205
of the UMRA EPA must identify and consider alternatives, including the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The EPA must select that
alternative, unless the Administrator explains in the final rule why it
was not selected or it is inconsistent with law.
Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them
on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate for regulatory
purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon state, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector.
The EPA finds that today's delisting decision is deregulatory in
nature and does not impose any enforceable duty on any State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. In addition, the proposed
delisting decision does not establish any regulatory requirements for
small governments and so does not require a small government agency
plan under UMRA section 203.
IX. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Comptroller General of the United States prior to
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will become
effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register.
X. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local,
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the OMB a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected state, local, and tribal governments, the
nature of their concerns, copies of written communications from the
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not
create a mandate on state, local or tribal governments. The rule does
not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to
this rule.
XI. Executive Order 13045
The Executive Order 13045 is entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This order applies to any rule that EPA determines: (1) Is
economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This
proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this is
not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866.
XII. Executive Order 13084
Because this action does not involve any requirements that affect
Indian Tribes, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order
13084 do not apply.
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects
that communities of indian tribal governments, and that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments.
If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the OMB, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation.
In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to meaningful and timely input'' in the
development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities of Indian tribal governments. This
action does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian
Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive
Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
XIII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under section 12(d) if the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA), the Agency is directed to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so
[[Page 18922]]
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices,
etc.) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies.
Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus
standards are not used by EPA, the NTTAA requires that Agency to
provide Congress, through the OMB, an explanation of the reasons for
not using such standards.
This rule does not establish any new technical standards and thus,
the Agency has no need to consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards in developing this final rule.
XIV. Executive Order 13132 Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that impose substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law
unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed regulation.
This action does not have federalism implication. It will not have
a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132, because it affects only one State.
List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: March 17, 2000.
Carl E. Edlund,
P.E. Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Region 6.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and
6938.
2. In Tables 1, 2, and 3 of appendix IX of part 261, add the
following waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as
follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Waste Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 1.--Waste Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Rhodia................................ Houston,Texas......................... Filter-cake Sludge, (at a
maximum generation of 1,200
cubic yards per calendar year)
generated by Rhodia using the
SARU and AWT treatment process
to treat the filter-cake sludge
(EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. D001-
D43, F001-F012, F019, F024,
F025, F032, F034, F037-F039)
generated at Rhodia.
Rhodia must implement a testing
program that meets the
following conditions for the
exclusion to be valid:
(1) Delisting Levels: All
concentrations for the
following constituents must not
exceed the following levels (mg/
l). For the filter-cake
constituents must be measured
in the waste leachate by the
method specified in 40 CFR
261.24.
(A) Filter-cake Sludge
(i) Inorganic Constituents:
Antimony-1.15; Arsenic-1.40;
Barium-21.00; Beryllium-1.22;
Cadmium-0.11; Cobalt-189.00;
Copper-90.00; Chromium-0.60;
Lead-0.75; Mercury-0.025;
Nickel-9.00; Selenium-4.50;
Silver-0.14; Thallium-0.20;
Vanadium-1.60; Zinc-4.30
(ii) Organic Constituents:
Chlorobenzene-Non Detect;
Carbon Tetrachloride-Non
Detect; Acetone-360; Chloroform-
0.9
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
Rhodia must store in accordance
with its RCRA permit, or
continue to dispose of as
hazardous waste all Filter-cake
Sludge until the verification
testing described in Condition
(3)(A), as appropriate, is
completed and valid analyses
demonstrate that condition (3)
is satisfied. If the levels of
constituents measured in the
samples of the Filter-cake
Sludge do not exceed the levels
set forth in Condition (1),
then the waste is nonhazardous
and may be managed and disposed
of in accordance with all
applicable solid waste
regulations.
(3) Verification Testing
Requirements: Rhodia must
perform sample collection and
analyses, including quality
control procedures, according
to SW-846 methodologies. If EPA
judges the process to be
effective under the operating
conditions used during the
initial verification testing,
Rhodia may replace the testing
required in Condition (3)(A)
with the testing required in
Condition (3)(B). Rhodia must
continue to test as specified
in Condition (3)(A) until and
unless notified by EPA in
writing that testing in
Condition (3)(A) may be
replaced by Condition (3)(B).
[[Page 18923]]
(A) Initial Verification
Testing: At quarterly intervals
for one year after the final
exclusion is granted, Rhodia
must collect and analyze
composites of the filter-cake
sludge. From Paragraph 1 TCLP
must be run on all waste and
any constituents for which
total concentrations have been
identified. Rhodia must conduct
a multiple pH leaching
procedure on samples collected
during the quarterly intervals.
Rhodia must perform the TCLP
procedure using distilled water
and three different pH
extraction fluids to simulate
disposal under three
conditions. Simulate an acidic
landfill environment, basic
landfill environment and a
landfill environment similar to
the pH of the waste. Rhodia
must report the operational and
analytical test data, including
quality control information,
obtained during this initial
period no later than 90 days
after the generation of the
waste.
(B) Subsequent Verification
Testing: Following termination
of the quarterly testing,
Rhodia must continue to test a
representative composite sample
for all constituents listed in
Condition (1) on an annual
basis (no later than twelve
months after the final
exclusion).
(4) Changes in Operating
Conditions: If Rhodia
significantly changes the
process which generate(s) the
waste(s) and which may or could
affect the composition or type
waste(s) generated as
established under Condition (1)
(by illustration, but not
limitation, change in equipment
or operating conditions of the
treatment process), or its
NPDES permit is changed,
revoked or not reissued, Rhodia
must notify the EPA in writing
and may no longer handle the
waste generated from the new
process or no longer discharge
as nonhazardous until the waste
meet the delisting levels set
in Condition (1) and it has
received written approval to do
so from EPA.
(5) Data Submittals: Rhodia must
submit the information
described below. If Rhodia
fails to submit the required
data within the specified time
or maintain the required
records on-site for the
specified time, EPA, at its
discretion, will consider this
sufficient basis to reopen the
exclusion as described in
Paragraph 6. Rhodia must:
(A) Submit the data obtained
through Paragraph 3 to Mr.
William Gallagher, Chief,
Region 6 Delisting Program,
EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733, Mail Code,
(6PD-O) within the time
specified.
(B) Compile records of operating
conditions and analytical data
from Paragraph (3), summarized,
and maintained on-site for a
minimum of five years.
(C) Furnish these records and
data when EPA or the State of
Texas request them for
inspection.
(D) Send along with all data a
signed copy of the following
certification statement, to
attest to the truth and
accuracy of the data submitted:
(i) Under civil and criminal
penalty of law for the making
or submission of false or
fraudulent statements or
representations (pursuant to
the applicable provisions of
the Federal Code, which
include, but may not be limited
to, 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 42
U.S.C. 6928), I certify that
the information contained in or
accompanying this document is
true, accurate and complete.
(ii) As to the (those)
identified section(s) of this
document for which I cannot
personally verify its (their)
truth and accuracy, I certify
as the company official having
supervisory responsibility for
the persons who, acting under
my direct instructions, made
the verification that this
information is true, accurate
and complete.
(iii) If any of this information
is determined by EPA in its
sole discretion to be false,
inaccurate or incomplete, and
upon conveyance of this fact to
the company, I recognize and
agree that this exclusion of
waste will be void as if it
never had effect or to the
extent directed by EPA and that
the company will be liable for
any actions taken in
contravention of the company's
RCRA and CERCLA obligations
premised upon the company's
reliance on the void exclusion.
(6) Reopener Language
(A) If, anytime after disposal
of the delisted waste, Rhodia
possesses or is otherwise made
aware of any environmental data
(including but not limited to
leachate data or groundwater
monitoring data) or any other
data relevant to the delisted
waste indicating that any
constituent identified for the
delisting verification testing
is at level higher than the
delisting level allowed by the
Regional Administrator or his
delegate in granting the
petition, then the facility
must report the data, in
writing, to the Regional
Administrator or his delegate
within 10 days of first
possessing or being made aware
of that data.
(B) If the annual testing of the
waste does not meet the
delisting requirements in
Paragraph 1, Rhodia must report
the data, in writing, to the
Regional Administrator or his
delegate within 10 days of
first possessing or being made
aware of that data.
(C) If Rhodia fails to submit
the information described in
paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or
(6)(B) or if any other
information is received from
any source, the Regional
Administrator or his delegate
will make a preliminary
determination as to whether the
reported information requires
Agency 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.
[[Page 18924]]
(D) If the Regional
Administrator or his delegate
determines that the reported
information does require Agency
action, the Regional
Administrator or his delegate
will notify the facility in
writing of the actions the
Regional Administrator or his
delegate believes are necessary
to protect human health and the
environment. The notice shall
include a statement of the
proposed action and a statement
providing the facility with an
opportunity to present
information as to why the
proposed Agency action is not
necessary. The facility shall
have 10 days from the date of
the Regional Administrator or
his delegate's notice to
present such information.
(E) Following the receipt of
information from the facility
described in paragraph (6)(D)
or (if no information is
presented under paragraph
(6)(D)) the initial receipt of
information described in
paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or
(6)(B), the Regional
Administrator or his delegate
will issue a final written
determination describing the
Agency actions that are
necessary to protect human
health or the environment. Any
required action described in
the Regional Administrator or
his delegate's determination
shall become effective
immediately, unless the
Regional Administrator or his
delegate provides otherwise.
(7) Notification Requirements:
Rhodia must do following before
transporting the delisted
waste: Failure to provide this
notification will result in a
violation of the delisting
petition and a possible
revocation of the decision.
(A) Provide a one-time written
notification to any State
Regulatory Agency to which or
through which they will
transport the delisted waste
described above for disposal,
60 days before beginning such
activities.
(B) Update the one-time written
notification if they ship the
delisted waste into a different
disposal facility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Waste Excluded From Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Rhodia................................ Houston, Texas........................ Filter-cake Sludge, (at a
maximum generation of 1,200
cubic yards per calendar year)
generated by Rhodia using the
SARU and AWT treatment process
to treat the filter-cake sludge
(EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K002-
004, K006-K011, K013-K052, K060-
K062, K064-K066, K069, K071,
K073, K083-K088, K090-K091,
K093-K118, K123-K126, K131-
K133, K136, K141-K145, K147-
K151, K156-K161) generated at
Rhodia. Rhodia must implement
the testing program described
in Table 1. Waste Excluded From
Non-Specific Sources for the
petition to be valid.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Waste Excluded From Commercial Chemical Products, Off-Specification Species, Container Residues, and
Soil Residues Thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Rhodia................................ Houston, Texas........................ Filter-cake Sludge, (at a
maximum generation of 1,200
cubic yards per calendar year)
generated by Rhodia using the
SARU and AWT treatment process
to treat the filter-cake sludge
(EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. P001-
P024, P026-P031, P033-P034,
P036-P051, P054, P056-P060,
P062-P078, P081-P082, P084-
P085, P087-P089, P092-P116,
P118-P123, P127-P128, P185,
P188-P192, P194, P196-P199,
P201-P205, U001-U012, U014-
U039, U041-U053, U055-U064,
U066-U099, U101-U103, U105-
U138, U140-U174, U176-U194,
U196-U197, U200-U211, U213-
U223, U225-U228, U234-U240,
U243-U244, U246-U249, U271,
U277-U280, U328, U353, U359,
U364-U367, U372-U373, U375-
U379, U381-U396, U400-U404,
U407, U409-U411) generated at
Rhodia. Rhodia must implement
the testing program described
in Table 1. Waste Excluded From
Non-Specific Sources for the
petition to be valid.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18925]]
[FR Doc. 00-8152 Filed 4-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P