[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41796-41801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-20043]
[[Page 41796]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-7025-8]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a
petition submitted by Tenneco Automotive (Tenneco) to exclude from
hazardous waste control (or delist) a certain solid waste. This final
rule responds to the petition submitted by Tenneco to delist F006
stabilized sludge on a ``generator specific'' basis from the lists of
hazardous waste.
After careful analysis and use of the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software, the EPA has concluded the petitioned waste is not hazardous
waste when disposed of in Subtitle D landfills. This exclusion applies
to 1,800 cubic yards of excavated stabilized waste water treatment
sludge currently stored in containment cells at Tenneco's Paragould,
Arkansas 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.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 2001.
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-
00-ARDEL-TENNECO.'' 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, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas at (214) 665-6775. For technical information concerning
this notice, contact Michelle Peace, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, (214) 665-7430.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The information in this section is organized as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What rule is EPA finalizing?
B. Why is EPA approving this delisting?
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
D. How will Tenneco manage the waste if it is delisted?
E. When is the final delisting exclusion effective?
F. How does this final rule 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 Tenneco petition EPA to delist?
B. How much waste did Tenneco propose to delist?
C. How did Tenneco 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. Response to Comments.
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?
After evaluating the petition, EPA proposed, on May 11, 2001 to
exclude the Tenneco waste from the lists of hazardous wastes under
Secs. 261.31 and 261.32 (see 66 FR 24085). The EPA is finalizing:
(1) The decision to grant Tenneco's petition to have its wastewater
treatment sludge excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a
hazardous waste, subject to certain continued monitoring conditions;
and
(2) The decision to use the Delisting Risk Assessment Software,
which includes the EPACMTP fate and transport model, to evaluate the
potential impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the
environment. The Agency used this model to predict the concentration of
hazardous constituents released from the petitioned waste, once it is
disposed in a Subtitle D landfill.
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Delisting?
Tenneco's petition requests a delisting for listed hazardous
wastes. Tenneco does not believe the petitioned waste meets the
criteria for which EPA listed it as a hazardous waste. Tenneco also
believes no additional constituents or factors could cause the waste to
be hazardous. EPA's review of this petition included consideration of
the original listing criteria and the additional factors required by
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section
3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)-(4). In
making the final delisting determination, EPA also evaluated the
petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in
Secs. 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, the EPA agrees
with the petitioner the waste is nonhazardous with respect to the
original listing criteria. If the EPA had found, based on this review,
the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for which the waste
was originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny the petition.
The EPA evaluated the waste with respect to other factors or criteria
to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that such
additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. The EPA
considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the concentration of the
constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to
bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from
the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned
waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste variability. The
EPA believes the petitioned waste does not meet these criteria. EPA's
final decision to delist waste from Tenneco's facility is based on the
information submitted by Tenneco in its petition, including
descriptions of the stabilization techniques and analytical data from
the Paragould, AR facility.
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. This is a one-time exclusion for 1,800
cubic yards of stabilized waste water treatment sludge.
D. How Will Tenneco Manage the Waste It Is Delisted?
Tenneco currently stores the petitioned waste (stabilized waste
water treatment sludge) generated in containment vaults on-site at its
facility. Tenneco will dispose of the sludge in a Subtitle D solid
waste landfill in Arkansas.
E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion Effective?
This rule is effective August 9, 2001. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to
become effective in less than six months after the rule is published
when the regulated community does not need the six-month period to come
into compliance. That is
[[Page 41797]]
the case here because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the
existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes. This
reduction in existing requirements also provides 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 Final Rule Affect States?
Because EPA is issuing this 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.
Here are the details: 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.
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 Tenneco
transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any State
with delisting authorization, Tenneco 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 believes should not be considered
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 regulation by excluding them
from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Secs. 261.31 and
261.32. Specifically, Sec. 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 Code of Federal Regulations. 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 the 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 Tenneco Petition EPA To Delist?
On September 8, 2000, Tenneco petitioned the EPA to exclude from
the lists of hazardous waste contained in Secs. 261.31 and 261.32, a
waste by-product (stabilized sludge from the wastewater treatment
plant) which falls under the classification of listed waste because of
the ``derived from'' rule in RCRA 40 CFR 261.3. Specifically, in its
petition, Tenneco Automotive, located in Paragould, Arkansas, requested
that EPA grant an exclusion for 1,800 cubic yards of stabilized sludge
from electroplating operations, excavated from the Finch Road Landfill
and currently stored in containment cells. The resulting waste is
listed, in accordance with Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(i) (i.e., the ``derived
from'' rule). The waste code of the constituents of concern is EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F006. The constituents of concern for F006 are
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and cyanide (complexed).
B. How Much Waste Did Tenneco Propose To Delist?
Specifically, in its petition, Tenneco requested that EPA grant a
one-time exclusion for 1,800 cubic yards of stabilized sludge.
C. How Did Tenneco Sample and Analyze the Waste Data in This Petition?
To support its petition, Tenneco submitted:
(1) Historical information on past waste generation and management
practices;
(2) Results of the total constituent list for 40 CFR part 264,
Appendix IX volatiles, semivolatiles, and metals except pesticides,
herbicides, and PCBs;
(3) Results of the constituent list for Appendix IX on Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract for volatiles,
semivolatiles, and metals;
(4) Results from total oil and grease analyses and pH measurements.
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Who Submitted Comments on the Proposed Rule?
The EPA received public comments on the May 11, 2001, proposal from
General Motors (GM).
B. Response To Comments
General Motors (GM) comments the terms used in the DRAS should be more
clearly defined. Does the term Cw for waste contamination account for
the total mass of contamination in the waste or only that portion that
may enter the aqueous phase?
All terms and equations used in the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS) program are discussed in the Delisting Technical
Support Document (DTSD). All abbreviations, acronyms, and variables are
listed in Chapter 1, pages x-xx of the DTSD. The DTSD is updated to
reflect revisions and modifications to risk algorithms and methodology.
The Agency encourages all users and reviewers to comment on the
technical support documentation and continues to improve the clarity
and transparency of the DTSD. The term Cw is not used in the document.
Without specific information to the page location/screen location of
the term referenced in the question above, no further response can be
provided.
GM comments that the definition of the criteria to be used to determine
de minimis risk levels and risk estimates should be provided for a
meaningful public review.
Information on the Risk and Hazard Assessment can be found in
Chapter 4 of the DTSD. Discussion of criteria and quantification of
risk are discussed in this Chapter.
The Delisting Program in its history has never focused on site-
specific conditions. It has since its inception
[[Page 41798]]
been a program specifically for waste generators. A review of the 40
CFR 260.22 indicates that these are petitions to amend part 261 to
exclude a waste produced at a particular facility. The Agency is not
currently using the model to predict site-specific results. Since
disposal of the delisted waste may occur at any Subtitle C or D
landfill in the United States, site-specific considerations are not
usually given. The DRAS model is based on national averages of the site
specific factors and is intended to model a reasonable worst case
scenario for disposal.
The Agency continues to review chemical-specific parameter data.
Where appropriate, these data will be incorporated into the DRAS
analyses. However, as explained above, in delisting analyses, site
specific characteristics (beyond waste constituent concentration and
volume) are not incorporated into analyses. Default values are given
for many parameters used in risk. The Agency can not fully evaluate how
release mechanisms and exposure scenarios may be impacted because the
final disposal location remains undefined.
GM comments that documentation of the sensitivity analysis should be
provided for a meaningful public review.
The DRAS provides the forward-calculated risk level and back-
calculated allowable waste concentration for each exposure pathway,
thereby permitting the user to determine which pathway drives the risk
for a given chemical. These analyses are currently provided for the
user by the DRAS program on the Chemical-Specific Results screen.
GM comments that unlikely scenarios and assumptions which compound the
release and risk estimates should be justified.
The DRAS model is intended to model a reasonable worst case model
and is based on national averages of these factors. This is the same
assumption used for the EPACML.
The DRAS employs standard risk assessment default parameters that
are accepted throughout the Agency in risk analyses (i.e., residential
exposure @ 350 days/yr, selection of the 90th percentile). These
default standards are described and listed in Appendix A of the DTSD.
The DRAS does employ a conservative approach to exposure assessment
by assuming the receptor may be exposed to both the most sensitive
groundwater pathway and the most sensitive surface exposure pathway.
The Agency has no way of knowing that this situation will not occur and
therefore deems it prudent to protect for this condition by adding
risks. Again, the Agency has no way of knowing the direction of media
flow and must assume that all media flow may move toward the receptor.
The Agency has no data to indicate that the landfill volume data and
other data from the 1987 landfill survey report is not valid. When
updated data are available, they will be incorporated into the
analyses.
The groundwater fate and transport model used by the Agency to
determine first order decay and other processes is the EPA's Composite
Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation Products (EPACMTP).
This model has been peer reviewed and received an excellent review from
the Science Advisory Board (SAB). EPA has proposed use of this SAB-
reviewed model and no convincing comments to the contrary have been
received.
The DRAS is complex and EPA must explain the models and risk processes
used in establishing regulatory limits.
Attached to the Delisting Risk Assessment Software is a Technical
Support Document which explains the risk algorithms and documentation
of the decisions made in development of the model. Publication costs
prohibit the inclusion of all this information into the Federal
Register notice but it is readily available in both the Technical
Support Document and at the Region 6 Delisting page (www.epa.gov/earth1/r6/pd-o/pd-o.htm). However, the Agency believes that the
Delisting Risk Assessment Software is no more complex than use of the
EPACML for delisting, just because the calculations have been
computerized make them no more difficult to understand than the EPACML.
Similar regression models were developed for the DRAS. The risk
pathways for surface water and air volatilization are evaluated by the
same equations used previously in the delisting program. And finally,
the pathways for showering and dermal contact are equations which are
commonly used in risk assessments performed for cleanups and site
assessments under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) commonly known as Superfund and
other programs.
GM comments that model should be peer reviewed and the public should
have the formal opportunity to provide comments.
The model has been peer reviewed by EPA risk assessors and EPA's
Office of Research and Development scientists. The public has the
opportunity to comment on the use of the DRAS model each time a
delisting is proposed which is based on the DRAS model. The Agency is
currently using the same level of public review used by the delisting
program for use of the EPA Composite Model for Landfills in 1991. The
model as modified for the delisting program was promulgated in
conjunction with its use in evaluating the Reynolds Metals Delisting
petition. See, 56 FR 32993 (July 18, 1991). No challenge was made to
procedures for promulgating the use of the EPACML in delisting
evaluations.
Summary of GM Comments
GM summarizes its comments on the DRAS by stating that (1) EPA is
proposing significant changes to the methodology it uses to evaluate
delisting petitions. It appears the changes would apply to all future
delisting petitions. (2) The proposed changes are complex. (3) It
appears the proposed changes would apply in all USEPA Regions. (4) The
proposed changes may include elements of the still-draft,
unpromulgated, and controversial HWIR waste model. It is inappropriate
and contrary to law and the Administrative Procedures Act to use a
model prior to public notice and comment. (5) No Federal Register
notice has been given to clearly indicate the EPA plans to change the
way it reviews and evaluates delisting petitions. Instead, references
to the changes in the model have been made as part of proposals to
delist specific waste streams. (6) If EPA is changing the model it uses
to evaluate delisting petitions (from the EPACML to the DRAS model)
USEPA should provide specific and clear public notification of this
intent. The risk assessment methodology for delisting that has been
used since 1991 should still apply until public review period is
completed.
The EPA is following the same notice provided for changing from the
VHS model to the EPA Composite Model for Landfills (EPACML). See 56 FR
32993, July 18, 1991. The public has the opportunity to comment on the
DRAS model each time a delisting is proposed which is based on the DRAS
model. General Motors has not stated any reason why the DRAS model is
not appropriate for use in evaluating the risk associated with the
Tenneco Delisting. EPA will consider use of alternatives model for
assessing risk if the comments received show that another model is more
appropriate under the circumstances.
General Motors states that use of model with public review and
comment
[[Page 41799]]
is a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and law.
Opportunity for public review and comment is provided for each
delisting petition. Comments are requested for each delisting decision
regarding the decision to delist the waste and use of a model to assess
the risk posed to human health and the environment. Each time the model
is used, just as with the use of the EPACML, the public and interested
stakeholders can comment on the appropriateness of the use. In fact,
each proposed rule for approving a delisting proposes the use of a
model in the evaluation of risk and asks for comment. Examples can be
seen in the Federal Register for the EPACML as well as the DRAS. See,
56 FR 32993 (July 18, 1991), 64 FR 44867 (August 18, 1999), and 65 FR
75641 (December 4, 2000). Any petitioner or interested party may
suggest more appropriate evaluation tools for predicting risk. Thus,
EPA believes that adequate public notice has been provided and the APA
has not been violated.
V. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory
actions. The final 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, thereby enabling this
facility to manage its waste as nonhazardous. There is no additional
impact therefore, due to this final rule. Therefore, 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
Pursuant to 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 (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required however if the
Administrator or delegated representative certifies the rule will not
have any impact on a 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 regulations. Accordingly, I hereby certify
that this 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 final rule have been approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980 (P.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 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. 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 this final delisting decision is deregulatory in nature and
does not impose any enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. In addition, the final delisting
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 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, 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.''
This 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
[[Page 41800]]
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 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
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly affects 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. If the mandate is
unfunded, EPA must 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 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
rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of
Indian tribal governments. 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, the Agency is directed 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, 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 Act 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.
List 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: July 27, 2001.
Stephen Gilrein,
Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is 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, 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--Waste Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and 260.22.
Table 1.--Waste Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
Tenneco Automotive............ Paragould, AR.... Stabilized sludge
from electroplating
operations,
excavated from the
Finch Road Landfill
and currently stored
in containment cells
by Tenneco (EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos.
F006). This is a one-
time exclusion for
1,800 cubic yards of
stabilized sludge
when it is disposed
of in a Subtitle D
landfill. This
exclusion was
published on August
9, 2001.
(1) Reopener
Language:
(A) If, anytime after
disposal of the
delisted waste,
Tenneco 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 Tenneco fails
to submit the
information
described in (2)(A)
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 41801]]
(C) If the Regional
Administrator or his
delegate determines
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.
(D) Following the
receipt of
information from the
facility described
in (1)(C) or (if no
information is
presented under
(1)(C)) the initial
receipt of
information
described in (1)(A),
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.
(2) Notification
Requirements:
Tenneco must do
following before
transporting the
delisted waste off-
site: Failure to
provide this
notification will
result in a
violation of the
delisting petition
and a possible
revocation of the
exclusion.
(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
Tenneco ships the
delisted waste to a
different disposal
facility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-20043 Filed 8-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P