[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36725-36735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17561]
[[Page 36725]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-7008-1]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to grant a petition submitted by Texas
Arai Manufacturing Facility (Texas Arai) to exclude (or delist) certain
solid wastes generated by its Houston, Texas, facility from the lists
of hazardous wastes.
The Agency bases its proposed decision to grant the petition on an
evaluation of waste-specific information provided by the petitioner.
This proposed decision, if finalized, would conditionally exclude the
petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The EPA is proposing to use the Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS) in the evaluation of the delisting petition. Based on waste
specific information provided by the petitioner, EPA is proposing to
use the DRAS to evaluate the impact of the petitioned waste on human
health and the environment.
If finalized, we would conclude that Texas Arai's petitioned waste
is nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria and that
the wastewater treatment process Texas Arai uses will substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from this
waste. We would also conclude that its process minimizes short-term and
long-term threats from the petitioned waste to human health and the
environment.
DATES: We will accept comments until August 27, 2001. We will stamp
comments received after the close of the comment period as ``late''.
These late'' comments may not be considered in formulating a final
decision. Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by July 30, 2001.
The request must contain the information prescribed in Sec. 260.20(d).
ADDRESSES: Please send three copies of your comments. You should send
two copies to William Gallagher, Delisting Section, Multimedia Planning
and Permitting Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, 75202. A third copy should
be sent to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC),
P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas, 78711-3087. Identify your comments at
the top with this regulatory docket number:
``F-00-TXDEL-Texas Arai.''
You should address requests for a hearing to the Director, Carl
Edlund, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deanna R. Lacy at (214) 665-6461.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The information in this section is organized as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA proposing?
B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this delisting?
C. How will Texas Arai manage the waste if it is delisted?
D. When would EPA finalize the proposed Delisting?
E. How would this action affect states?
II. Background
A. What is the history of the delisting program?
B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a
petitioner?
C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a
delisting petition?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What wastes did Texas Arai petition EPA to delist?
B. Who is Texas Arai and what process does it use to generate
the petition waste?
C. How did Texas Arai sample and analyze the waste data in this
petition?
D. What were the results of Texas Arai's analysis?
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
F. What did EPA conclude about Texas Arai's analysis?
G. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
H. What is EPA's final evaluation of this delisting petition?
IV. Next Steps
A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?
B. What happens if Texas Arai violates the terms and conditions?
V. Public Comments
A. How may I as an interested party submit comments?
B. How may I review the docket or obtain copies of the proposed
exclusions?
VI. Regulatory Impact
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
X. Executive Order 13045
XI. Executive Order 13084
XII. National Technology Transfer and Advancements Act
XIII. Executive Order 13132 Federalism
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
The EPA is proposing:
(1) To grant Texas Arai's petition to have its F006 wastewater
treatment sludge excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a
hazardous waste, subject to certain continued verification and
monitoring conditions; and
(2) To use a fate and transport model to evaluate the potential
impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the environment. The
Agency would use this model to predict the concentration of hazardous
constituents released from the petitioned waste, once it is disposed.
B. Why Is EPA Proposing To Approve This Delisting?
Texas Arai's petition requests a delisting for listed hazardous
wastes. Texas Arai does not believe that the petitioned waste meets the
criteria for which EPA listed it. Texas Arai also believes no
additional constituents or factors could cause the waste to be
hazardous. The 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 initial delisting determination, EPA 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 that the waste is nonhazardous with respect to the
original listing criteria. (If the EPA had found, based on this review,
that 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 that the petitioned waste does not meet these criteria.
EPA's proposed decision to delist waste from
[[Page 36726]]
Texas Arai's facility is based on the information submitted in support
of this proposal, i.e., descriptions of the wastewater treatment
system, and analytical data from the Houston facility.
C. How Will Texas Arai Manage the Waste if it Is Delisted?
Texas Arai currently disposes of the wastewater treatment sludge by
transporting it to a disposal facility, Phillips Services (formerly
Eltex Chemical) in Houston. Then, according to Phillips Services, it is
transported to Texas Ecologists located in Robstown, Texas, for
stabilization and final disposal. If delisted, Texas Arai plans to
manage the wastewater treatment sludge as a Class I nonhazardous
industrial solid waste, and proposes to dispose of the sludge at an
approved and permitted industrial waste landfill to be determined
pending successful completion of the petition.
D. When Would EPA Finalize the Proposed Delisting?
RCRA section 3001(f) specifically requires EPA to provide proposal
and an opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final
exclusion. Thus, EPA will not grant the exclusion until it addresses
all timely public comments (including those at public hearings, if any)
on this proposed rule.
RCRA section 3010(b)(1) at 42 U.S.C.A. 6930(b)(1), allows 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, if finalized, would reduce the existing
requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes.
The EPA believes that this exclusion should be effective
immediately upon final publication because a six-month deadline is not
necessary to achieve the purpose of Sec. 3010(b), and a later effective
date would impose unnecessary hardship and expense on this petitioner.
These reasons also provide good cause for making this rule effective
immediately, upon final publication, under the Administrative Procedure
Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
E. How Would This Action Affect the 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 which have received
authorization from EPA 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
Sec. 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.A. 6929. 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 RCRA 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
unless that State makes the rule part of its authorized program. If
Texas Arai transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in
any State with delisting authorization, Texas Arai must obtain
delisting authorization from that State before they can manage the
waste as nonhazardous in that State.
II. Background
A. What Is the History of the Delisting Program?
The EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from
nonspecific and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its
final and interim final regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA.
The EPA has amended this list several times and published it in
Secs. 261.31 and 261.32.
We list these wastes as hazardous because: (1) They typically and
frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous
wastes identified in Subpart C of Part 261 (that is, ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or (2) they meet the criteria
for listing contained in Secs. 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3).
Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste
described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a specific waste
from an individual facility meeting the listing description may not be
hazardous.
For this reason, Secs. 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion
procedure, called delisting, which allows persons to prove that EPA
should not regulate a specific waste from a particular generating
facility as a hazardous waste.
B. What Is a Delisting Petition, and What Does it Require of a
Petitioner?
A delisting petition is a request from a facility to EPA or an
authorized State to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes.
The facility petitions the Agency because it does not consider the
wastes hazardous under RCRA regulations.
In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that wastes
generated at a particular facility do not meet any of the criteria for
which a waste was listed wastes. The criteria for which EPA lists a
waste are in Part 261 further explains and in the background documents
for the listed waste.
In addition, under Sec. 260.22, a petitioner must prove that the
waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (that
is, ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and present
sufficient information for EPA to decide whether factors other than
those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a
hazardous waste. (See Part 261 and the background documents for the
listed wastes.)
Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm whether their
waste remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics
even if EPA has ``delisted'' the waste.
C. What Factors Must EPA Consider in Deciding Whether To Grant a
Delisting Petition?
Besides considering the criteria in Sec. 260.22(a) and Sec. 3001(f)
of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background documents for the
listed wastes, EPA must consider any factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which we listed the waste if a
reasonable basis exists that these additional factors could cause the
waste to be hazardous.
The EPA must also consider as hazardous waste mixtures containing
listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or
disposing of listed hazardous waste. See Secs. 261.3(a)(2)(iii and iv)
and (c)(2)(i), called the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively. These wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain
hazardous wastes until excluded.
The ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules are now final, after
having been vacated, remanded, and reinstated. On December 6, 1991, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the
``mixture/derived from'' rules and remanded them to EPA on procedural
grounds. See Shell Oil Co. v. EPA., 950 F.2d 741 (DC Cir. 1991). On
[[Page 36727]]
March 3, 1992, EPA reinstated the mixture and derived-from rules, and
solicited comments on other ways to regulate waste mixtures and
residues. See (57 FR 7628). These rules became final on October 30,
1992. See (57 FR 49278). Consult these references for more information
about mixtures and derived from wastes.
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What Waste Did Texas Arai Petition EPA To Delist?
On April 13, 2000, Texas Arai petitioned the EPA to exclude from
the lists of hazardous waste contained in Secs. 261.31 and 261.32 a
F006 wastewater treatment sludge generated from the treatment of
process wastewater associated with metal plating and finishing
operations. Specifically, in its petition, Texas Arai located in
Houston, Texas, requested that EPA grant an exclusion for 186 cubic
yards per year of wastewater treatment sludge resulting from its
hazardous waste treatment process.
B. Who Is Texas Arai and What Process Do They Use To Generate the
Petitioned Waste?
Texas Arai is a manufacturing facility in Houston, TX which has
been in operation since 1981 and began its generation of the petitioned
waste in 1997. Texas Arai produces carbon steel couplings for the
petroleum and petrochemical industry.
The facility machines tubular carbon steel into threaded couplings
which are then finished by chromium steel plating, followed by paint
marking and packaging. The couplings are machined from raw carbon steel
and alloy metals and are plated to American Petroleum Institute (API)
specifications. Metal finishing and plating operations generate
wastewater which is treated in an on-site wastewater treatment system
prior to discharge. Hazardous wastes generated during facility
operations include: wastewater treatment sludge, zinc phosphate
solution, alkaline cleaning solution, spent solvents, and spent paint
wastes. The petitioned waste has been disposed of as a hazardous waste
at Texas Ecologists in Robstown, Texas. 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).
C. How Did Texas Arai Sample and Analyze the Waste Data in This
Petition?
Four grab samples were collected each week over a period of five
weeks. The grab sample locations were selected using a random sampling
strategy. Each of the four grab samples were combined into a single
composite sample. Samples were collected from two trays underlying the
filter press. Sampling was conducted by Dames & Moore consulting firm.
To support its petition, Texas Arai submitted:
(1) Descriptions of its wastewater treatment system associated with
petitioned wastes;
(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 for total sulfide,
(5) results for total cyanide;
(6) Results for pH;
(7) Results of the metals; amd
(9) Results from oil and grease.
D. What Were the Results of Texas Arai's Analyses?
The EPA believes that the descriptions of the Texas Arai hazardous
waste process and analytical characterization provide a reasonable
basis to grant Texas Arai's petition for an exclusion of the wastewater
treatment sludge. The EPA believes the data submitted in support of the
petition show Texas Arai's process renders the wastewater treatment
sludge nonhazardous. The EPA has reviewed the sampling procedures used
by Texas Arai and has determined they satisfy EPA criteria for
collecting representative samples of the variations in constituent
concentrations in the wastewater treatment sludge. The data submitted
in support of the petition show that constituents in Texas Arai's waste
are presently below health-based levels used in the delisting decision-
making. The EPA believes that Texas Arai has successfully demonstrated
that the wastewater treatment sludge is nonhazardous.
E. How Did EPA Evaluate the Risk of Delisting the Waste?
For this delisting determination, EPA used such information
gathered to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground water,
surface water, air) for hazardous constituents present in the
petitioned waste. The EPA determined that disposal in a Subtitle D
landfill is the most reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for Texas
Arai's petitioned waste. The EPA applied the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS) described in 65 FR 58015 (September 27, 2000) and 65 FR
75637 (December 4, 2000) to predict the maximum allowable
concentrations of hazardous constituents that may release from the
petitioned waste after disposal and determined the potential impact of
the disposal of Texas Arai's petitioned waste on human health and the
environment. In assessing potential risks to ground water,
specifically, EPA used the maximum estimated waste volumes and the
maximum reported extract concentrations as inputs to the DRAS program
to estimate the constituent concentrations in the ground water at a
hypothetical receptor well down gradient from the disposal site. Using
the risk level (carcinogenic risk of 10-5 and non-cancer hazard index
of 0.1), the DRAS program can back-calculate the acceptable receptor
well concentrations (referred to as compliance-point concentrations)
using standard risk assessment algorithms and Agency health-based
numbers. Using the maximum compliance-point concentrations and the
EPACMTP fate and transport modeling factors, the DRAS further back-
calculates the maximum permissible waste constituent concentrations not
expected to exceed the compliance-point concentrations in ground water.
The EPA believes that the EPACMTP fate and transport model
represents a reasonable worst-case scenario for possible ground water
contamination resulting from disposal of the petitioned waste in a
landfill, and that a reasonable worst-case scenario is appropriate when
evaluating whether a waste should be relieved of the protective
management constraints of RCRA Subtitle C. The use of some reasonable
worst-case scenario results in conservative values for the compliance-
point concentrations and ensures that the waste, once removed from
hazardous waste regulation, will not pose a significant threat to human
health or the environment.
Similarly, the DRAS used the maximum estimated waste volumes and
the maximum reported total concentrations to predict possible risks
associated with releases of waste constituents through surface pathways
(e.g., volatilization or wind-blown particulate from the landfill). In
the ground water analyses, the DRAS uses the established acceptable
risk level, the health-based data and standard risk assessment and
exposure algorithms to predict maximum compliance-point
[[Page 36728]]
concentrations of waste constituents at a hypothetical point of
exposure. Using fate and transport equations, the DRAS uses the maximum
compliance-point concentrations and back-calculates the maximum
allowable waste constituent concentrations (or ``delisting levels'').
In most cases, because a delisted waste is no longer subject to
hazardous waste control, EPA is generally unable to predict, and does
not presently control, how a petitioner will manage a waste after
delisting. Therefore, EPA currently believes that it is inappropriate
to consider extensive site-specific factors when applying the fate and
transport model.
The EPA also considers the applicability of ground water monitoring
data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this case, Texas
Arai does not dispose of waste onsite, therefore, no groundwater data
is available.
From the evaluation of Texas Arai's delisting petition, EPA
developed a list of constituents for the verification testing
conditions. Proposed maximum allowable leachable concentrations for
these constituents were derived by back-calculating from the delisting
health-based levels through the proposed fate and transport model for a
landfill management scenario. These concentrations (i.e., ``delisting
levels'') are part of the proposed verification testing conditions of
the exclusion.
The EPA believes that the descriptions of the Texas Arai, Inc.,
hazardous waste process and analytical characterization, in conjunction
with the proposed testing requirements (as discussed later in this
proposed exclusion) provide a reasonable basis to conclude that the
likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the petitioned
waste will be substantially reduced so that short-term and long-term
threats to human health and the environment are minimized. Thus, EPA
should grant Texas Arai's petition for a standard conditional exclusion
of the wastewater treatment sludge.
The EPA Region 6 Delisting Program guidance document states that
the appropriate fate and effect model will be used to determine the
effect the petitioned waste could have on human health if it is not
managed as a hazardous waste. Specifically, the model considers the
maximum estimated waste volume and the maximum reported leachate
concentrations as inputs to estimate the constituent concentrations in
the ground water at a hypothetical receptor well downgradient from the
disposal site. The calculated receptor well concentrations (referred to
as compliance-point concentrations) are then compared directly to the
health-based levels used in delisting decision-making for hazardous
constituents of concern. EPA Region 6 has selected the DRAS as the
appropriate model for the delisting program. This subsection presents
an evaluation of the potential for ground water contamination for the
petitioned waste using the DRAS.
The EPA considered the appropriateness of alternative waste
management scenarios for Texas Arai's wastewater treatment sludge. The
EPA decided, based on the information provided in the petition, that
disposal of the wastewater treatment sludge in a municipal solid waste
landfill is the most reasonable, worst-case scenario for the wastewater
treatment sludge. Under a landfill disposal scenario, the major
exposure route of concern for any hazardous constituents would be
ingestion of contaminated ground water. The EPA, therefore, evaluated
Texas Arai's petitioned waste using DRAS which predicts the potential
for ground water contamination from waste placed in a landfill.
For the evaluation of Texas Arai's petitioned waste, EPA used the
DRAS to evaluate the mobility of the hazardous constituents detected in
the extract of samples of Texas Arai's wastewater treatment sludge.
Total analysis was also utilized for the wastewater treatment sludge.
The maximum annual waste volume for Texas Arai is 186 cubic yards per
year. The Dilution Attenuation Factors are currently calculated
assuming an ongoing process generates waste for 20 years.
Analytical data for the wastewater treatment sludge samples were
used in the model. The data summaries for detected constituents are
presented in Table I. The data in this table shows that the Maximum
Total concentration in the waste is low and if leached, the waste would
not pose a significant risk to the environment.
The EPA's evaluation of the wastewater treatment sludge is based on
the maximum reported Total and TCLP concentrations (See Table II).
Based on the DRAS, the petitioned waste should be delisted because no
constituents of concern exceed the delisting concentrations.
Table I.--Maximum Total and TCLP Constituent Concentrations Wastewater Treatment Sludge \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total constituent analyses
(mg/kg) (SW-846, Method 8240,
Constituent 8260, 8030, 8020, 8010, 8015, TCLP leachate concentration (mg/1)
8270, 8080, 8150, 6010, 7470, (SW-846, method 1311)
7870, 9030, 9010, 9040)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aluminum.................................... 643 ND(0.1)
Arsenic..................................... 3.55 ND(0.1)
Barium...................................... 37.4 ND(0.1)
Chromium.................................... 70.7 (0.1)
Chromium (VI)............................... 0.1 N/A
Cobalt...................................... 3.63 0.021
Copper...................................... 33.6 ND(0.02)
Manganese................................... 862 7
Nickel...................................... 2560 14.9
Tin......................................... 10800 0.92
Zinc........................................ 19300 9.5
Ethylbenzene................................ 0.022 ND(0.005)
Xylenes..................................... 0.073 ND(0.005)
Carbon Disulfide............................ 0.28 ND(0.005)
Methylene Chloride.......................... 0.017 ND(0.05)
Acetonitrile................................ 0.21 0.21
Allyl Chloride.............................. 0.018 0.018
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthlate.................. 4.4 ND(0.005)
Chloride.................................... 549 N/A
[[Page 36729]]
Sulfides.................................... 24200 N/A
pH.......................................... 8.94 N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent found in any one sample. These levels
do not necessarily represent the specific levels found in one sample.
ND Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the method detection limit specified in the table.
N/A Not Applicable.
Table II.--Maximum Allowable Concentrations of Constituents in Leachate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
allowable
Constituent leachate
concentration
(mg/L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allyl Chloride.......................................... 0.187
Acetonitrile............................................ 21.3
Arsenic................................................. 0.163
Barium.................................................. 100
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate............................ 4.88
Carbon Disulfide........................................ 2.94
Chromium................................................ 5.0
Cobalt.................................................. 39.3
Copper.................................................. 130
Ethylbenzene............................................ 3.33
Manganese............................................... 91.7
Methylene Chloride...................................... 3.95
Nickel.................................................. 49.3
Tin..................................................... 393.0
Xylenes................................................. 104.0
Zinc.................................................... 489.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. What did EPA Conclude About Texas Arai's Analysis?
The EPA concluded, after reviewing Texas Arai's processes, that no
other hazardous constituents of concern, other than those for which
tested, are likely to be present or formed as reaction products or by
products in Texas Arai's waste. In addition, on the basis of
explanations and analytical data provided by Texas Arai pursuant to
Sec. 260.22, the EPA concludes that the petitioned waste does not
exhibit any of the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, or
reactivity. See, Secs. 261.21, 261.22, and 261.23, respectively.
G. What Other Factors Did EPA Consider in Its Evaluation?
During the evaluation of Texas Arai's petition, EPA also considered
the potential impact of the petitioned waste via non-ground water
routes (i.e., air emission and surface runoff). With regard to airborne
dispersion in particular, EPA believes that exposure to airborne
contaminants from Texas Arai's petitioned waste is unlikely. Therefore,
no appreciable air releases are likely from Texas Arai's waste under
any likely disposal conditions. The EPA evaluated the potential hazards
resulting from the unlikely scenario of airborne exposure to hazardous
constituents released from Texas Arai's waste in an open landfill. The
results of this worst-case analysis indicated that there is no
substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the
environment from airborne exposure to constituents from Texas Arai's
Wastewater treatment sludge. A description of EPA's assessment of the
potential impact of Texas Arai's waste, regarding airborne dispersion
of waste contaminants, is presented in the RCRA public docket for the
proposed rule F-00-TXDEL-TXARAI.
The EPA also considered the potential impact of the petitioned
waste via a surface water route. The EPA believes that containment
structures at municipal solid waste landfills can effectively control
surface water runoff, as the Subtitle D regulations (See 56 FR 50978,
October 9, 1991) prohibit pollutant discharges into surface waters.
Furthermore, the concentrations of any hazardous constituents dissolved
in the runoff will tend to be lower than the levels in the TCLP
leachate analyses reported in this proposed rule due to the aggressive
acidic medium used for extraction in the TCLP. The EPA believes that,
in general, leachate derived from the waste is unlikely to directly
enter a surface water body without first traveling through the
saturated subsurface where dilution and attenuation of hazardous
constituents will also occur. Leachable concentrations provide a direct
measure of solubility of a toxic constituent in water and are
indicative of the fraction of the constituent that may be mobilized in
surface water as well as ground water.
Based on the reasons discussed above, EPA believes that the
contamination of surface water through runoff from the waste disposal
area is very unlikely. Nevertheless, EPA evaluated the potential
impacts on surface water if Texas Arai's waste were released from a
municipal solid waste landfill through runoff and erosion. See the RCRA
public docket for the proposed rule for further information on the
potential surface water impacts from runoff and erosion. The estimated
levels of the hazardous constituents of concern in surface water would
be well below health-based levels for human health, as well as below
EPA Chronic Water Quality Criteria for aquatic organisms (USEPA, OWRS,
1987). The EPA, therefore, concluded that Texas Arai's wastewater
treatment sludge is not a present or potential substantial hazard to
human health and the environment via the surface water exposure
pathway.
H. What Is EPA's Final Evaluation of This Delisting Petition?
The descriptions of Texas Arai's hazardous waste process and
analytical characterization, with the proposed verification testing
requirements (as discussed later in this proposed exclusion) provide a
reasonable basis for EPA to grant the exclusion. The data submitted in
support of the petition show that constituents in the waste are below
the maximum allowable leachable concentrations (see Table II). We
believe Texas Arai has an effective treatment process that has rendered
the waste as nonhazardous.
Thus, EPA believes we should grant Texas Arai an exclusion for the
wastewater treatment sludge. The EPA believes the data submitted in
support of the petition show Texas Arai's process renders the
wastewater treatment sludge nonhazardous.
We have reviewed the sampling procedures used by Texas Arai and
have determined they satisfy EPA criteria for collecting representative
samples of variable constituent concentrations in the wastewater
treatment sludge. The data submitted in support of the petition show
that constituents in Texas Arai's waste are presently below the
compliance point concentrations used in the delisting decision-making
and do not pose a substantial hazard to the environment. The EPA
believes that Texas Arai has successfully demonstrated that the
wastewater treatment sludge is nonhazardous.
[[Page 36730]]
The EPA therefore, proposes to grant a standard conditional
exclusion to the Texas Arai, in Houston, Texas, for the wastewater
treatment sludge described in its petition. The EPA's decision to
conditionally exclude this waste is based on descriptions of the
treatment activities associated with the petitioned waste and
characterization of the wastewater treatment sludge.
If we finalize the proposed rule, the Agency will no longer
regulate the petitioned waste under parts 262 through 268 and the
permitting standards of part 270.
IV. Next Steps
A. With What Conditions Must the Petitioner Comply?
The petitioner, Texas Arai, must comply with the requirements in 40
CFR part 261, Appendix IX, Table 1. The text below gives the rationale
and details of those requirements.
(1) Delisting Levels
This paragraph provides the levels of constituents Texas Arai must
test the leachate from the wastewater treatment sludge, below which
these wastes would be considered nonhazardous.
The EPA selected the set of inorganic and organic constituents
specified in Paragraph (1) because of information in the petition. We
compiled the list from the composition of the waste, descriptions of
Texas Arai's treatment process, previous test data provided for the
waste, and the respective health-based levels used in delisting
decision-making.
These delisting levels correspond to the allowable levels measured
in the TCLP extract of the waste.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling
The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that any wastewater
treatment sludge which might contain hazardous levels of inorganic and
organic constituents are managed and disposed of in accordance with
Subtitle C of RCRA. If EPA determines that the data collected under
this condition do not support the data provided in the petition, the
exclusion will not cover the petitioned waste.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements
Although the wastewater treatment sludge is considered delisted
upon promulgation of this rule, EPA believes that conditional testing
requirements are still warranted to ensure continued effectiveness of
the treatment process. During the verification period, which is
described in paragraph (3)(A)(i), Texas Arai must collect four samples
quarterly for a period of one year. After successful completion of the
initial verification period, which is approximately 12 months from the
date of promulgation of the final rule, Texas Arai may begin annual
sampling of the wastewater treatment sludge.
(A) Testing. The EPA believes that the concentrations of the
constituents of concern in the wastewater treatment sludge may vary
over time. Therefore, EPA believes that quarterly sampling of this
waste is adequate for Texas Arai to collect sufficient data to verify
that the data provided for the wastewater treatment sludge is
representative. Texas Arai may dispose of the sludge as a nonhazardous
waste during the initial verification period if the waste meets the
exclusion levels of Paragraph (1). Texas Arai would begin annual
sampling on the first anniversary date of the final exclusion if the
quarterly sampling is completed.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions
Paragraph (4) would allow Texas Arai the flexibility of modifying
its processes (for example, changes in equipment or changes in
operating conditions) to improve its treatment process. However, Texas
Arai must prove the effectiveness of the modified process and request
approval from the EPA. Texas Arai must manage wastes generated during
the new process demonstration as hazardous waste until it has obtained
written approval and Paragraph (3) is satisfied.
(5) Data Submittals
To provide appropriate documentation that Texas Arai's facility is
properly treating the waste, Texas Arai must compile, summarize, and
keep delisting records on-site for a minimum of five years. It should
keep all analytical data obtained through Paragraph (3) including
quality control information for five years. Paragraph (5) requires that
Texas Arai furnish these data upon request for inspection by any
employee or representative of EPA or the State of Texas.
If the proposed exclusion is made final, it will apply only to 186
cubic yards of wastewater treatment sludge, generated annually at the
Texas Arai facility after successful verification testing.
We would require Texas Arai to file a new delisting petition under
any of the following circumstances:
(a) If it uses any new manufacturing or production process(es), or
significantly change from the current process(es) described in its
petition; or
(b) If it makes any changes that could affect the composition or
type of waste generated.
Texas Arai must manage annual waste volumes greater than 186 cubic
yards of wastewater treatment sludge as hazardous unless or until we
grant a new exclusion.
If this exclusion becomes final, Texas Arai's management of the
wastes covered by this petition would be relieved from Subtitle C
jurisdiction. Texas Arai must ensure that it delivers the waste to an
off-site storage, treatment, or disposal facility that has a State
permit, license, or is registered to manage municipal or industrial
solid waste.
(6) Reopener Language
The purpose of Paragraph 6 is to require Texas Arai to disclose new
or different information related to a condition at the facility or
disposal of the waste if it is pertinent to the delisting. Texas Arai
must also use this procedure, if the waste sample in the annual testing
fails to meet the levels found in Paragraph 1. This provision will
allow EPA to reevaluate the exclusion if a source provides new or
additional information to the Agency. The EPA will evaluate the
information on which we based the decision to see if it is still
correct, or if circumstances have changed so that the information is no
longer correct or would cause EPA to deny the petition if presented.
This provision expressly requires Texas Arai to report differing site
conditions or assumptions used in the petition in addition to failure
to meet the annual testing conditions within 10 days of discovery. If
EPA discovers such information itself or from a third party, it can act
on it as appropriate. The language being proposed is similar to those
provisions found in RCRA regulations governing no-migration petitions
at Sec. 268.6.
The EPA believes that we have the authority under RCRA and the
Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et seq., to reopen a
delisting decision. We may reopen a delisting decision when we receive
new information that calls into question the assumptions underlying the
delisting.
The Agency believes a clear statement of its authority in
delistings is merited in light of Agency experience. See Reynolds
Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 (July 14, 1997) and 62 FR 63458 (December
1, 1997) where the delisted waste leached at greater concentrations in
the environment than the concentrations predicted when conducting the
TCLP, thus leading the Agency to repeal the delisting. If an immediate
threat to human health and the environment presents itself, EPA will
continue to address these situations
[[Page 36731]]
case by case. Where necessary, EPA will make a good cause finding to
justify emergency rulemaking. See APA Sec. 553 (b).
(7) Notification Requirements
In order to adequately track wastes that have been delisted, EPA is
requiring that Texas Arai provide a one-time notification to any State
regulatory agency through which or to which the delisted waste is being
carried. Texas Arai must provide this notification within 60 days of
commencing this activity.
B. What Happens if Texas Arai Violates the Terms and Conditions?
If Texas Arai violates the terms and conditions established in the
exclusion, the Agency will start procedures to withdraw the exclusion.
Where there is an immediate threat to human health and the environment,
the Agency will continue to evaluate the need for enforcement
activities on a case-by-case basis. The Agency expects Texas Arai to
conduct the appropriate waste analysis and comply with the criteria
explained above in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the exclusion.
VI. Public Comments
A. How Can I as an Interested Party Submit Comments?
The EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision.
Please send three copies of your comments. Send two copies to William
Gallagher, Delisting Section, Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 6, 1445
Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. Send a third copy to the Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin,
Texas 78753. Identify your comments at the top with this regulatory
docket number: ``F-00-TXDEL-Texas Arai.''
You should submit requests for a hearing to Carl Edlund, Director,
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202.
B. How May I Review the Docket or Obtain Copies of the Proposed
Exclusion?
You may review the RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule at
the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202. It is available for viewing in the EPA Freedom of
Information Act Review Room from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for
appointments. The public may copy material from any regulatory docket
at no cost for the first 100 pages, and at fifteen cents per page for
additional copies.
VI. 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 the 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.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, whenever an
agency is required to publish a general 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 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 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.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and record-keeping 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 (Public Law 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned
OMB Control Number 2050-0053.
IX. 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 the 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.
X. 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
[[Page 36732]]
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.
XI. 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
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
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
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.
XII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under Section 12(d) of 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.
XIII. 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 facility.
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: June 15, 2001.
Carl E. Edlund,
Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division.
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, and 6938.
2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of part 261 it is proposed to 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Texas Arai Chemical Company........ Houston, Texas............. Wastewater treatment sludge EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F006 generated at a maximum annual
rate of 186 cubic yards per calendar year
after (publication date of the final rule)
and disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill.
Texas Arai 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). The wastewater
treatment sludge constituents must be
measured in the waste leachate by the method
specified in 40 CFR 261.24.
[[Page 36733]]
(A) Wastewater treatment sludge: (i) Inorganic
Constituents: Arsenic--0.163; Barium--100;
Chromium--5.0; Cobalt--39.3; Copper--130;
Manganese--91.7; Nickel--49.3; Tin--393.0 ;
Zinc--489.0.
(ii) Organic Constituents: Acetonitrile--21.3;
Allyl Chloride--0.00435; Carbon Disulfide--
2.94; bis(2-ethylhexylphthalate--4.88;
Ethylbenzene--3.33; Methylene Chloride--3.95;
Xylenes--104.0.
(2) Verification Testing Requirements:
Texas Arai must perform sample collection and
analyses, including quality control
procedures, according to SW-846
methodologies.
(A) Required Testing: (i) Texas Arai must
collect and analyze at least four composite
samples of the wastewater treatment sludge
quarterly for a period of one year. The
samples must be analyzed for constituents
listed in Paragraph 1. (ii) After paragraph
(3)(A)(i) has been completed, Texas Arai must
collect and analyze at least one composite
sample of the wastewater treatment sludge
annually.
(3) Changes in Operating Conditions:
If Texas Arai 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
Paragraph(1) (by illustration, but not
limitation, change in equipment or operating
conditions of the treatment process), Texas
Arai must notify the EPA in writing and may
no longer manage the waste generated from the
new process as nonhazardous until the waste
meet the delisting levels set in Paragraph
(1) and it has received written approval to
do so from EPA.
(4) Data Submittals:
Texas Arai must submit or maintain, as
applicable, the information described below.
If Texas Arai 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. Texas
Arai 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:
``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. Sec. 1001 and 42
U.S.C. Sec. 6928), I certify that the
information contained in or accompanying this
document is true, accurate, and complete.''
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.
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.''
[[Page 36734]]
(5) Reopener Language
(A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted
waste, Texas Arai possesses or is otherwise
made aware of any environmental data
(including but not limited to leachate data
or ground water monitoring data) or any other
data relevant to the delisted waste
indicating that any constituent identified
for the delisting verification testing is at
a 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, Texas Arai 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 Texas Arai 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.
(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
proposal 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 action to
present such information.
(E) Following the receipt of information from
the facility described in paragraph (6)(C) or
(if no information is presented under
paragraph (6)(C) 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.
(6) Notification Requirements:
Texas Arai must do the 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 they ship the delisted waste to a
different disposal facility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36735]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-17561 Filed 7-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P