[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2337-2342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-959]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-6523-3]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (we or EPA) is granting a
petition submitted by BWX Technologies, Inc. (formerly Babcock &
Wilcox), to exclude from hazardous waste control (or delist) a certain
solid waste. This action responds to the petition originally submitted
by BWX Technologies, Inc. to delist a wastewater treatment sludge in
the form of a filter cake on a ``generator specific'' basis from the
lists of hazardous waste.
After careful analysis, we have concluded that the petitioned waste
is not hazardous waste when disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which
is permitted, licensed, or registered by a State to manage municipal or
industrial solid waste, a permitted Subtitle C landfill or a Subtitle C
landfill which is operating under interim status. This exclusion
applies to filter cake generated at BWX Technologies, Inc.'s Lynchburg,
Virginia facility. Accordingly, this final rule excludes the petitioned
waste from the requirements of the hazardous waste regulations under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of in a
Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a
State to manage municipal or industrial solid waste, a permitted
Subtitle C landfill or a Subtitle C landfill which is operating under
interim status, but imposes testing conditions to ensure that the
future-generated wastes remain qualified for delisting.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 14, 2000.
ADDRESSES: The RCRA regulatory docket for this final rule is located at
the offices of U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA,
19103-2029, and is available for viewing from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call David M.
Friedman at (215) 814-3395 for appointments. The public may copy
material from the regulatory docket at $0.15 per page. The docket for
this final rule is also located at the offices of the Campbell County
Administrator's Office, P.O. Box 100, Main Street--Haberer Building 2nd
floor, Rustburg,
[[Page 2338]]
VA, 24588, and is available for viewing from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Call Kathy Elliot at (804)
332-9619 for appointments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
document, contact David M. Friedman at the address above or at (215)
814-3395.
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 BWX Technologies 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 Waste Did BWX Technologies Petition EPA To Delist?
B. How Much Waste Did BWX Technologies Propose To Delist?
C. How Did BWX Technologies Sample and Analyze the Waste Data in
This Petition?
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Who Submitted Comments on the Proposed Rule?
B. What Were the Comments?
C. What is EPA's Response to the Comment?
V. Administrative Assessments
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. The Congressional Review Act
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
G. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?
We are finalizing:
(1) The decision to grant BWX Technologies, Inc.'s (hereinafter,
BWX Technologies') petition to have its filter cake excluded, or
delisted, from the definition of a hazardous waste; and
(2) The use of the EPA Composite Model for Landfills as the fate
and transport model to evaluate the potential impact of the petitioned
waste on human health and the environment. We used this model to
predict the concentration of hazardous constituents released from the
petitioned waste once it is disposed.
After evaluating the petition, EPA proposed on August 4, 1999, to
exclude BWX Technologies' waste from the lists of hazardous wastes
found at 40 CFR 261.31 (see 64 FR 42317).
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Delisting?
BWX Technologies petitioned to exclude its filter cake because it
does not believe that the petitioned waste meets the criteria for which
it was listed.
BWX Technologies 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 factors (including additional constituents) other than those
for which the waste was listed, as 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(a)(1) and (2).
For reasons stated in both the proposal and this document, we
believe that BWX Technologies' filter cake should be excluded from
hazardous waste control. Therefore, we are granting a final exclusion
to BWX Technologies, located in Lynchburg, Virginia for its filter
cake.
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 appendix IX to part 261 of
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are satisfied. The maximum
annual volume of the filter cake is 500 cubic yards.
D. How Will BWX Technologies Manage the Waste if It Is Delisted?
The filter cake is currently disposed of in an off-site hazardous
waste landfill. When delisted, the waste can be disposed of in an off-
site Subtitle D industrial landfill, or it may continue to be disposed
of in an off-site hazardous waste landfill.
E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion Effective?
This rule is effective January 14, 2000. HSWA 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. For these same reasons, this rule can become
effective immediately (that is, upon publication in the Federal
Register) 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
EPA's authorization to make their own delisting decisions. We describe
these two situations below.
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 applicable State regulatory authority to establish the
status of their wastes under the State law.
We have also authorized some States (for example, Delaware,
Louisiana, 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 BWX
Technologies transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in
any State with delisting authorization, BWX Technologies must obtain
delisting approval from that State before it can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in that State.
II. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition?
A delisting petition is a formal request from a generator to EPA or
another agency with jurisdiction to exclude from the lists of hazardous
waste regulated by RCRA, a waste that the generator does not consider
hazardous.
B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To Delist a Waste?
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition EPA to
remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding them from
the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31, 261.32 and
261.33.
[[Page 2339]]
Specifically, 40 CFR 260.20 allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through
266, 268 and 273 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR
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 allow 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 that the waste is not
hazardous for any other reason.
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Data
A. What Waste Did BWX Technologies Petition EPA To Delist?
BWX Technologies petitioned EPA to exclude from hazardous waste
control the filter cake solids generated by its wastewater treatment
facility. This filter cake results from the treatment of wastewaters in
the pickle acid treatment system and it is a listed hazardous waste,
EPA Hazardous Waste F006. The listed constituents of concern for this
EPA Hazardous Waste F006 are cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel and
complexed cyanide (see 40 CFR part 261, appendix VII).
B. How Much Waste Did BWX Technologies Propose To Delist?
Specifically, in a March 11, 1999 update to its original petition,
BWX Technologies requested that EPA grant a standard exclusion for
filter cake solids generated at a rate of 300 cubic yards per calender
year.
C. How Did BWX Technologies Sample and Analyze the Waste Data in This
Petition?
In support of its petition, BWX Technologies submitted detailed
descriptions of its manufacturing and wastewater treatment processes, a
schematic diagram of the wastewater treatment process, and analytical
testing results for representative samples of the petitioned wastes,
including: (1) The hazardous characteristics of ignitability and
corrosivity; (2) total oil and grease; (3) Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW-846 Method 1311) analysis for volatile and
semi-volatile organic compounds and Toxicity Characteristic (TC) metals
plus antimony, beryllium, cobalt, copper, nickel, thallium, tin,
vanadium and zinc; (4) total constituent analysis for volatile and
semi-volatile organic compounds and TC metals plus antimony, beryllium,
cobalt, copper, nickel, thallium, tin, vanadium and zinc; (5) total
cyanide, total sulfide, total fluoride and total formaldehyde; and (6)
TCLP analysis for fluoride. BWX Technologies developed a list of
constituents of concern by comparing a list of all raw materials used
in the plant that could possibly appear in the petitioned waste with
those found in 40 CFR parts 261, appendix VIII and 264, appendix IX.
Based on a knowledge of its metal working processes and other processes
at the facility and of the treatment operation, BWX Technologies
determined that certain classes of chemical constituents would not be
anticipated to be present in the filter cake. These chemicals include
semi-volatile organic constituents (except those constituents listed in
40 CFR 261.24), pesticides, herbicides, dioxins and furans.
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Who Submitted Comments on the Proposed Rule?
We received public comments on the August 4, 1999 proposed
exclusion from only one interested party. This was the petitioner, BWX
Technologies.
B. What Were the Comments?
BWX Technologies requested an increase in the maximum waste volume
that is covered by this exclusion for the filter cake solids from 300
cubic yards per calendar year in the proposed exclusion to 500 cubic
yards per calendar year. This request is being made in anticipation of
an increase in production levels at the Lynchburg, VA facility.
C. What is EPA's Response to the Comment?
This requested change in the volume of filter cake solids will not
change the results of EPA's evaluation of the petition for the
following reasons.
We evaluated the potential impacts from disposal of the filter cake
solids on the ground water, surface water and air exposure pathways.
The model that we used for evaluating the potential ground water
contamination does so by calculating a dilution/attenuation factor
(DAF) which can vary from 100 for smaller annual volumes of waste
(i.e., less than 1000 cubic yards per year) to 10 for larger annual
volumes of waste (i.e., 400,000 cubic yards per year or more). Because
the requested change to 500 cubic yards per year is still below the
1000 cubic yard per year threshold, the DAF used in evaluating the
potential impact on ground water will not change; that is, the DAF will
remain 100 (which was the DAF used in our evaluation for the proposed
rule).
In addition, there is no change in the evaluation that we did of
the potential impacts from disposal of the filter cake solids on the
surface water and air exposure pathways since our evaluation for the
proposed rule was done using a waste volume of 500 cubic yards. The
results of all these evaluations are contained in the RCRA public
docket for today's rule.
Therefore, we approve the request to increase the volume of filter
cake solids covered by this exclusion from 300 cubic yards to 500 cubic
yards per calendar year.
V. Administrative Assessments
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must determine whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to OMB
review and the other provisions of the Executive Order. A ``significant
regulatory action'' is one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order
12866.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 it has been determined that this
rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is therefore not
subject to OMB review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) 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 effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
[[Page 2340]]
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency or delegated representative certifies the rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal
Agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying
that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. 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 rules.
Accordingly, I hereby certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule, therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility
analysis.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated
with this rule have been approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980 (Public Law 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned
OMB Control Number 2050-0053.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. The proposed delisting decision is
deregulatory, and imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, today's rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In
addition, EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments and, therefore, no small government agency plan is
required under section 203 of the UMRA.
E. The Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (CRA)
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 the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. Rules of particular applicability are
exempt, however, from the CRA. See 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Inasmuch as this
action affects only one facility, it is a rule of particular
applicability which is exempt from the requirements of the CRA and the
EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action
under section 801.
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have 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 rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.
G. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership
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, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting with these governments, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA
to provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the
extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected
State, local and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, any
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.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs EPA to
use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless
to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs
[[Page 2341]]
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
This rulemaking 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 proposed rule.
I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
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, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting with these governments,
Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of
Management and Budget, 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
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their
communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. There is no impact to tribal
governments as the result of today's proposed delisting decision.
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084
do not apply to this proposed rule.
Lists of Subjects in 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: December 13, 1999.
Thomas C. Voltaggio,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 3.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended
as follows:
PART 261--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
2. In Table 1 of appendix IX, part 261 add the following waste
stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and
260.22.
Table 1.--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
BWX Technologies......................... Lynchburg, VA........................... Wastewater treatment sludge
from electroplating
operations (EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F006) generated
at a maximum annual rate
of 500 cubic yards per
year, after January 14,
2000, and disposed of in a
Subtitle D landfill. BWX
Technologies must meet the
following conditions for
the exclusion to be valid:
(1) Delisting Levels: All
leachable concentrations
for the following
constituents measure using
the SW-846 method 1311
(the TCLP) must not exceed
the following levels (mg/
l). (a) Inorganic
constituents--Antimony-
0.6; Arsenic-5.0; Barium-
100; Beryllium-0.4;
Cadmium-0.5; Chromium-5.0;
Cobalt-210; Copper-130;
Lead-1.5; Mercury-0.2;
Nickel-70; Silver-5.0;
Thallium-0.2; Tin-2100;
Zinc-1000; Fluoride-400.
(b) Organic constituents--
Acetone-400; Methylene
Chloride-0.5.
(2) Verification testing
schedule: BWX Technologies
must analyze a
representative sample of
the filter cake from the
pickle acid treatment
system on an annual,
calendar year basis using
methods with appropriate
detection levels and
quality control
procedures. If the level
of any constituent
measured in the sample of
filter cake exceeds the
levels set forth in
Paragraph 1, then the
waste is hazardous and
must be managed in
accordance with Subtitle C
of RCRA. Data from the
annual verification
testing must be submitted
to EPA within 60 days of
the sampling event.
(3) Changes in Operating
Conditions: If BWX
Technologies significantly
changes the manufacturing
or treatment process
described in the petition,
or the chemicals used in
the manufacturing or
treatment process, BWX
Technologies may not
manage the filter cake
generated from the new
process under this
exclusion until it has met
the following conditions:
(a) BWX Technologies must
demonstrate that the waste
meets the delisting levels
set forth in Paragraph 1;
(b) it must demonstrate
that no new hazardous
constituents listed in
appendix VIII of part 261
have been introduced into
the manufacturing or
treatment process: and (c)
it must obtain prior
written approval from EPA
to manage the waste under
this exclusion.
(4) Data Submittals: The
data obtained under
Paragraphs 2 and 3 must be
submitted to The Waste and
Chemicals Management
Division, U.S. EPA Region
III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Records of operating
conditions and analytical
data must be compiled,
summarized, and maintained
on site for a minimum of
five years and must be
furnished upon request by
EPA or the Commonwealth of
Virginia, and made
available for inspection.
Failure to submit the
required data within the
specified time period or
to maintain the required
records on site for the
specified time period will
be considered by EPA, at
its discretion, sufficient
basis to revoke the
exclusion to the extent
determined necessary by
EPA. All data must be
accompanied by a signed
copy of the certification
statement set forth in 40
CFR 260.22(i)(12) to
attest to the truth and
accuracy of the data
submitted.
[[Page 2342]]
(5) Reopener:
(a) If BWX Technologies
discovers that a condition
at the facility or an
assumption related to the
disposal of the excluded
waste that was modeled or
predicted in the petition
does not occur as modeled
or predicted, then BWX
Technologies must report
any information relevant
to that condition, in
writing, to the Regional
Administrator or his
delegate within 10 days of
discovering that
condition.
(b) Upon receiving
information described in
paragraph (a) of this
section, regardless of its
source, the Regional
Administrator or his
delegate will determine
whether the reported
condition requires further
action. Further action may
include repealing the
exclusion, modifying the
exclusion, or other
appropriate response
necessary to protect human
health and the
environment.
(6) Notification
Requirements: BWX
Technologies must provide
a one-time written
notification to any State
Regulatory Agency to which
or through which the
delisted waste described
above will be transported
for disposal at least 60
days prior to the
commencement of such
activities. Failure to
provide such a
notification will be
deemed to be a violation
of this exclusion and may
result in a revocation of
the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 00-959 Filed 1-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P