[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 134 (Friday, July 12, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46139-46148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-17458]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-7245-1]
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 use the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS) in the evaluation of a 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.
The EPA is also proposing to grant a petition submitted by Tokusen
USA, Inc. (Tokusen) to exclude (or delist) a certain solid waste
generated by its Conway, Arkansas, 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 exclude the petitioned
waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
If finalized, we would conclude that Tokusen's petitioned waste is
nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria and that the
dewatered sludge generated from the on-site Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP) and not from a manufacturing process will substantially reduce
the likelihood of migration of constituents from this waste. We would
also conclude that their 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 26, 2002. 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 29, 2002. The
request must contain the information prescribed in 40 CFR 260.20(d).
ADDRESSES: Please send three copies of your comments. You should send
two copies to the Section Chief of the Delisting Section, Multimedia
Planning and Permitting Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. You should send a third
copy to Ali Dorobati, Hazardous Waste Division, Active Sites Branch,
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), P.O. Box 8913,
Little Rock, Arkansas, 72219-8913. Identify your comments at the top
with this regulatory docket number: ``F-02-ARDEL-TOKUSEN.''
You should address requests for a hearing to the Director, Carl
Edlund, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry K. Landry (214) 665-8134.
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 Tokusen manage the waste if it is delisted?
D. When would the EPA finalize the delisting?
E. How would this action affect the 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 Tokusen petition EPA to delist?
B. What is Tokusen and how did it generate this waste?
C. What information and analyses did Tokusen submit to support
its petition?
D. What were the results of Tokusen's analysis?
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
F. What other factors did EPA consider?
G. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
IV. Next Steps
A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?
B. What happens if Tokusen violates the terms and conditions?
V. Public Comments
A. How can 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 Tokusen's petition to have its dewatered WWTP sludge
excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a hazardous waste; 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?
Tokusen's petition requests a delisting for an F006 listed
hazardous waste. Tokusen does not believe that the petitioned waste
meets the criteria for which EPA listed it. Tokusen also believes no
additional constituents or factors could cause the waste to be
hazardous. The EPA's review of this
[[Page 46140]]
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) (hereinafter all sectional
references are to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated). 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 the listing
criteria and thus should not be a listed waste. The EPA's proposed
decision to delist waste from Tokusen's facility is based on the
information submitted in support of this rule, including descriptions
of the wastes and analytical data from the Conway, Arkansas facility.
C. How Will Tokusen Manage the Waste if It Is Delisted?
Tokusen currently sends the petitioned waste to Envirite
Corporation, a hazardous landfill in Harvey, Illinois. If the delisting
exclusion is finalized, Tokusen intends to dispose of the petitioned
waste, dewatered WWTP sludge, in a solid waste landfill in Little Rock,
Arkansas called Waste Management Industrial Landfill.
D. When Would the EPA Finalize the Delisting?
RCRA section 3001(f) specifically requires EPA to provide notice
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 proposal.
RCRA section 3010(b)(1) at 42 USCA 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 section 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 who 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
section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 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
Tokusen transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any
State with delisting authorization, Tokusen must obtain delisting
authorization from that State before they can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in the 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 the waste was listed. The criteria for which EPA lists a waste
are in part 261 and further explained 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 waste.)
Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm whether their
waste remains nonhazardous based on the
[[Page 46141]]
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 section
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. See 66 FR 27266 (May 16, 2001).
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What Waste Did Tokusen Petition EPA To Delist?
On October 24, 2001, Tokusen petitioned the EPA to exclude from the
lists of hazardous waste contained in Secs. 261.31 and 261.32, a
dewatered WWTP sludge generated from the facility located in Conway,
Arkansas. The waste falls under the classification of listed waste
because of the ``derived-from'' rule in Sec. 261.3. Specifically, in
its petition, Tokusen requested that EPA grant an exclusion for 670
cubic yards of dewatered sludge resulting from its hazardous waste
treatment process. The resulting waste is listed, in accordance with
the ``derived-from'' rule.
B. What Is Tokusen, and How Did it Generate This Waste?
The Tokusen facility is located in an industrial/commercial setting
in the southern portion of the City of Conway, Faulkner County,
Arkansas. The 47.25 acre Tokusen property contains a production
facility measuring approximately 400,000 square feet in size. Plant
process operations at the Tokusen facility are in support of a singular
finished product, namely high carbon steel tire cord for use in radial
tire manufacturing. The facility operates 24 hours per day, 7 days per
week, 365 days per year with the exception of periodic planned
shutdowns for routine maintenance.
The Tokusen facility manufactures steel cord used to produce steel
belted radial tires. The steel cord is produced from steel rod which
has been reduced in size and electroplated with copper and zinc to
produce a brass coating. The plant generates four major types of waste
and they are process wastewater, F006 dewatered WWTP sludge, sanitary
sewage and other solid waste (rod wrappers, lube sludge, soap dust and
other solids). The petitioned waste is generated from the wastewater
treatment plant and not from the manufacturing process. The
electroplating units which contribute wastewater to the WWTP are the
copper and zinc electroplating baths. The waste code of the petitioned
waste is EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006. The constituents of concern for
F006 are cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and cyanide (complexed).
C. What Information and Analyses Did Tokusen Submit to Support its
Petition?
To support its petition, Tokusen 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, metals, pesticides, herbicides,
dioxins and PCBs;
(3) Results of the constituent list for Appendix IX on Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract for volatiles,
semivolatiles, and metals;
(4) Analytical constituents of concern for F006;
(5) Results from total oil and grease analyses;
(6) Multiple pH testing for the petitioned waste.
D. What Were the Results of Tokusen's Analyses?
The EPA believes that the descriptions of the Tokusen analytical
characterization provide a reasonable basis to grant Tokusen's petition
for an exclusion of the dewatered WWTP sludge. The EPA believes the
data submitted in support of the petition show the dewatered WWTP
sludge is non-hazardous. Analytical data for the dewatered WWTP sludge
samples were used in the DRAS. The data summaries for detected
constituents are presented in Table I. The EPA has reviewed the
sampling procedures used by Tokusen and has determined they satisfy EPA
criteria for collecting representative samples of the variations in
constituent concentrations in the dewatered WWTP sludge. The data
submitted in support of the petition show that constituents in
Tokusen's waste are presently below health-based levels used in the
delisting decision-making. The EPA believes that Tokusen has
successfully demonstrated that the dewatered WWTP sludge is non-
hazardous.
Table I.--Maximum Total and TCLP Constituent Concentrations of the
Dewatered WWTP Sludge \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total TCLP leachate
Constituent constituent Concentration
analyses (mg/kg) (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony............................ 1.27 *0.5
Arsenic............................. 3.32 *0.5
Barium.............................. 49 *0.1
Chromium............................ 13 *0.05
Cobalt.............................. 2.21 *0.05
Copper.............................. 3,190 0.09
Lead................................ 5,130 0.402
Nickel.............................. 38.2 1.93
Selenium............................ 4.08 0.0734
Silver.............................. 0.174 0.0283
Vanadium............................ 5.67 0.0134
Zinc................................ 21,800 8.94
1,4 Dichlorobenzene................. * 0.020 0.019
[[Page 46142]]
Hexachlorobutadiene................. * 0.330 0.120
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
* Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the noted detection
limit.
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
Tokusen's petitioned waste. 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 be released from the
petitioned waste after disposal and determined the potential impact of
the disposal of Tokusen's petitioned waste on human health and the
environment. A copy of this software can be found on the world wide web
at www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/rcra_c/pd-o/dras.htm. In assessing
potential risks to ground water, 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 EPA Composite Model for
Leachate Migration with Transformation Products (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 groundwater.
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 scenarios resulted 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.
The DRAS also uses 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). As
in the above ground water analyses, the DRAS uses the risk level, the
health-based data and standard risk assessment and exposure algorithms
to predict maximum compliance-point 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 does control the type of unit where the waste
is disposed. The waste must be disposed in the type of unit the fate
and transport model evaluates.
The EPA also considers the applicability of ground water monitoring
data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this case,
Tokusen has never directly disposed of this material in a solid waste
landfill, so no representative data exists. Therefore, EPA has
determined that it would be unnecessary to request ground water
monitoring data.
The EPA believes that the descriptions of Tokusen's hazardous waste
process and analytical characterization 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.
The DRAS results which calculate the maximum allowable
concentration of chemical constituents in the waste are presented in
Table II. Based on the comparison of the DRAS results and maximum TCLP
concentrations found in Table I, the petitioned waste should be
delisted because no constituents of concern which tested, are likely to
be present or formed as reaction products or by products in Tokusen's
waste. In addition, on the basis of explanations and analytical data
provided by Tokusen, 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.
F. What Other Factors Did EPA Consider?
During the evaluation of Tokusen'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 Tokusen's petitioned waste is unlikely. Therefore, no
appreciable air releases are likely from Tokusen'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 Tokusen'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 Tokusen's
dewatered WWTP sludge. A description of EPA's assessment of the
potential impact of Tokusen's waste, regarding airborne dispersion of
waste contaminants, is presented in the RCRA
[[Page 46143]]
public docket for this proposed rule, F-02-ARDEL-Tokusen.
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 notice 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 Tokusen's waste were released from a
municipal solid waste landfill through runoff and erosion. See the RCRA
public docket for this 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 Tokusen's dewatered WWTP
sludge is not a present or potential substantial hazard to human health
and the environment via the surface water exposure pathway.
G. What Is EPA's Evaluation of This Delisting Petition?
The descriptions of Tokusen's hazardous waste process and
analytical characterization, with the proposed verification testing
requirements (as discussed later in this notice), 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 Tokusen's
process will substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents from the petitioned waste. Tokusen's process
also minimizes short-term and long-term threats from the petitioned
waste to human health and the environment.
Thus, EPA believes we should grant Tokusen an exclusion for the
dewatered WWTP sludge. The EPA believes the data submitted in support
of the petition show Tokusen's process can render the dewatered WWTP
sludge non-hazardous.
We have reviewed the sampling procedures used by Tokusen and have
determined they satisfy EPA criteria for collecting representative
samples of variable constituent concentrations in the dewatered WWTP
sludge. The data submitted in support of the petition show that
constituents in Tokusen's waste are presently below the compliance
point concentrations used in the delisting decision-making and would
not pose a substantial hazard to the environment. The EPA believes that
Tokusen has successfully demonstrated that the dewatered WWTP sludge is
non-hazardous.
The EPA therefore, proposes to grant an exclusion to Tokusen, in
Conway, Arkansas, for the dewatered WWTP sludge described in its
petition. The EPA's decision to exclude this waste is based on
descriptions of the treatment activities associated with the petitioned
waste and characterization of the dewatered WWTP 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, Tokusen, 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 that Tokusen must test the leachate from the dewatered
WWTP sludge, below which these wastes would be considered non-
hazardous.
The EPA selected the set of inorganic and organic constituents
specified in Paragraph (1) of 40 CFR part 261, appendix IX, Table 1,
based on information in the petition. We compiled the inorganic and
organic constituents list from the composition of the waste,
descriptions of Tokusen'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 Tokusen manages and disposes of any dewatered WWTP sludge
that might contain hazardous levels of inorganic and organic
constituents according to Subtitle C of RCRA. Holding the dewatered
WWTP sludge until characterization is complete will protect against
improper handling of hazardous material. If EPA determines that the
data collected under this Paragraph do not support the data provided
for in the petition, the exclusion will not cover the petitioned waste.
The exclusion is effective when we sign it, but the disposal cannot
begin until the verification sampling is completed.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements: (A) Initial Verification
Testing: If the EPA determines that the data from the initial
verification period shows the treatment process is effective, Tokusen
may request that EPA allow it to conduct verification testing
quarterly. If EPA approves this request in writing, then Tokusen may
begin verification testing quarterly.
The EPA believes that an initial period of 60 days is adequate for
a facility to collect sufficient data to verify that the data provided
for the dewatered WWTP sludge, in the 2001 petition, is representative.
If we determine that the data collected under this Paragraph do not
support the data provided for the petition, the exclusion will not
cover the generated wastes. If the data from the initial verification
period demonstrate that the treatment process is effective, Tokusen may
request quarterly testing. EPA will notify Tokusen, in writing, if and
when they may replace the testing conditions in paragraph(3)(A)with the
testing conditions in (3)(B).
(B) Subsequent Verification Testing: The EPA believes that the
concentrations of the constituents of concern in the dewatered WWTP
sludge may vary over time. As a result, to ensure that Tokusen's
treatment process can effectively handle any variation in constituent
concentrations in the waste, we are proposing a subsequent verification
testing condition.
The proposed subsequent testing would verify that Tokusen operates
the manufacturing of steel cord as it did during the initial
verification testing. It would also verify that the dewatered WWTP
sludge do not exhibit
[[Page 46144]]
unacceptable levels of toxic constituents.
The EPA is proposing to require Tokusen to analyze representative
samples of the dewatered WWTP sludge quarterly during the first year of
waste generation. Tokusen would begin quarterly sampling on the
anniversary date of the final exclusion as described in paragraph
(3)(B).
(C) Termination of Organic Testing: The EPA is proposing to end the
subsequent testing conditions for organics during the first year in
paragraph (1)(C) after Tokusen has demonstrated that the waste
consistently meets the delisting levels. Annual testing requires the
full list of components in paragraph 1.
If the annual testing of the waste does not meet the delisting
requirements in paragraph 1, Tokusen must notify the Agency according
to the requirements in paragraph 6. We will take the appropriate
actions necessary to protect human health and the environment. The
facility must provide sampling results that support the rationale that
the delisting exclusion should not be withdrawn.
To confirm that the characteristics of the waste do not change
significantly over time, Tokusen must continue to analyze a
representative sample of the waste for organic constituents annually.
If operating conditions change as described in paragraph (4); Tokusen
must reinstate all testing in paragraph (1)(A). They must prove through
a new demonstration that their waste meets the conditions of the
exclusion. Tokusen must continue organic testing of the dewatered WWTP
sludge for the exclusion of that waste.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: Paragraph (4) would allow
Tokusen the flexibility of modifying its processes (for example,
changes in equipment or change in operating conditions) to improve its
treatment process. However, Tokusen must prove the effectiveness of the
modified process and request approval from the EPA. Tokusen must manage
wastes generated during the new process demonstration as hazardous
waste until they have obtained written approval and paragraph (3) is
satisfied.
(5) Data Submittals: To provide appropriate documentation that
Tokusen's facility is properly treating the waste, Tokusen must
compile, summarize, and keep delisting records on-site for a minimum of
five years. They should keep all analytical data obtained through
Paragraph (3) including quality control information for five years.
Paragraph (5) requires that Tokusen furnish these data upon request for
inspection by any employee or representative of EPA or the State of
Arkansas.
If the proposed exclusion is made final, it will apply only to 670
cubic yards of dewatered WWTP sludge, generated annually at the Tokusen
facility after successful verification testing.
We would require Tokusen to file a new delisting petition under any
of the following circumstances:
(a) If they significantly alter the manufacturing process treatment
system except as described in paragraph (4);
(b) If they use any new manufacturing or production process(es), or
significantly change from the current process(es) described in their
petition; or
(c) If they make any changes that could affect the composition or
type of waste generated.
Tokusen must manage waste volumes greater than 670 cubic yards of
dewatered WWTP sludge as hazardous until we grant a new exclusion.
When this exclusion becomes final, Tokusen's management of the
wastes covered by this petition would be relieved from Subtitle C
jurisdiction. Tokusen must either treat, store, or dispose of the waste
in an on-site facility. If not, Tokusen must ensure that it delivers
the waste to an off-site storage, treatment, or disposal facility that
has a State permit, license, or register to manage municipal or
industrial solid waste.
(6) Reopener: The purpose of paragraph 6 is to require Tokusen 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.
Tokusen 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 Tokusen 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 (APA), 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 and 62 FR 63458 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 case by case. Where necessary, EPA will make a good cause
finding to justify emergency rulemaking. See APA section 553 (b).
(7) Notification Requirements: In order to adequately track wastes
that have been delisted, EPA is requiring that Tokusen provide a one-
time notification to any State regulatory agency through which or to
which the delisted waste is being carried. Tokusen must provide this
notification within 60 days of commencing this activity.
B. What Happens if Tokusen Violates the Terms and Conditions?
If Tokusen 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 evaluate the need for enforcement activities on a case-
by-case basis. The Agency expects Tokusen to conduct the appropriate
waste analysis and comply with the criteria explained above in
Condition 1 of the exclusion.
V. 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 Section
Chief of the Delisting Section, Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. Send a third copy to Ali Dorobati,
Hazardous Waste Division, Active Sites Branch, Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ), P.O. Box 8913, Little Rock, Arkansas,
72219-8913 Identify your comments at the top with this
[[Page 46145]]
regulatory docket number: ``F-02-ARDEL-Tokusen.''
You should submit requests for a hearing to Carl Edlund, Director,
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD), Environmental
Protection Agency, 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 this 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 notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public
comment a regulatory flexibility analysis which describes the impact of
the rule on small entities (that is, small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). No regulatory
flexibility analysis is required, however, if the Administrator or
delegated representative certifies that the rule will not have any
impact on a small entities.
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 this 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
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 have ``meaningful and timely input'' in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their
[[Page 46146]]
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) 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.
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: July 2, 2002.
Steve Vargo,
Acting Director, Multimedia Planning & 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Tokusen USA, Inc........................ Conway, AR................. Dewatered wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.
F006) generated at a maximum annual rate
of 670 cubic yards per calendar year
after [insert publication date of the
final rule] and disposed in a Subtitle D
landfill. For the exclusion to be valid,
Tokusen must implement a testing program
that meets the following Paragraphs:
(1) Delisting Levels: All leachable
concentrations for those constituents
must not exceed the following levels (mg/
1). The petitioner must use an
acceptable leaching method, for example
SW-846, Method 1311 to measure
constituents in the waste leachate.
Dewatered WWTP sludge (i) Inorganic
Constituents Antimony-0.360; Arsenic-
0.0654; Barium-51.1; Chromium-5.0;
Cobalt-15.7; Copper-7,350; Lead-5.0;
Nickel-19.7; Selenium-1.0; Silver-2.68;
Vanadium-14.8; Zinc-196. (ii) Organic
Constituents 1,4 Dichlorobenzene-3.03;
hexachlorobutadiene-0.21.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling: Tokusen
must store the dewatered WWTP sludge as
described in its RCRA permit, or
continue to dispose of as hazardous all
dewatered WWTP sludge generated, until
they have completed verification testing
described in Paragraph (3)(A) and (B),
as appropriate, and valid analyses show
that paragraph (1) is satisfied.
(B) Levels of constituents measured in
the samples of the dewatered WWTP sludge
that do not exceed the levels set forth
in Paragraph (1) are non-hazardous.
Tokusen can manage and dispose the non-
hazardous dewatered WWTP sludge
according to all applicable solid waste
regulations.
(C) If constituent levels in a sample
exceed any of the delisting levels set
in Paragraph (1), Tokusen must retreat
the batches of waste used to generate
the representative sample until it meets
the levels. Tokusen must repeat the
analyses of the treated waste.
[[Page 46147]]
(D) If the facility has not treated the
waste, Tokusen must manage and dispose
the waste generated under Subtitle C of
RCRA.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements:
Tokusen must perform sample collection
and analyses, including quality control
procedures, according to SW-846
methodologies. If EPA judges the process
to be effective under the operating
conditions used during the initial
verification testing, Tokusen may
replace the testing required in
Paragraph (3)(A) with the testing
required in Paragraph (3)(B). Tokusen
must continue to test as specified in
Paragraph (3)(A) until and unless
notified by EPA in writing that testing
in Paragraph (3)(A) may be replaced by
Paragraph (3)(B).
(A) Initial Verification Testing: After
EPA grants the final exclusion, Tokusen
must do the following: (i) Collect and
analyze composites of the dewatered WWTP
sludge. (ii) Make two composites of
representative grab samples collected.
(iii) Analyze the waste, before
disposal, for all of the constituents
listed in Paragraph 1. (iv) Sixty (60)
days after this exclusion becomes final,
report the operational and analytical
test data, including quality control
information.
(B) Subsequent Verification Testing:
Following written notification by EPA,
Tokusen may substitute the testing
conditions in (3)(B) for (3)(A). Tokusen
must continue to monitor operating
conditions, and analyze representative
samples each quarter of operation during
the first year of waste generation. The
samples must represent the waste
generated during the quarter.
(C) Termination of Organic Testing: (i)
Tokusen must continue testing as
required under Paragraph (3)(B) for
organic constituents in Paragraph
(1)(A)(ii), until the analytical results
submitted under Paragraph (3)(B) show a
minimum of two consecutive samples below
the delisting levels in Paragraph
(1)(A)(i), Tokusen may then request that
EPA stop quarterly organic testing.
After EPA notifies Tokusen in writing,
the company may end quarterly organic
testing. (ii) Following cancellation of
the quarterly testing, Tokusen must
continue to test a representative
composite sample for all constituents
listed in Paragraph (1) annually (by
twelve months after final exclusion).
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If
Tokusen significantly changes the
process described in its petition or
starts any processes that generate(s)
the waste that may or could affect the
composition or type of waste generated
as established under Paragraph (1) (by
illustration, but not limitation,
changes in equipment or operating
conditions of the treatment process),
they must notify EPA in writing; they
may no longer handle the wastes
generated from the new process as
nonhazardous until the wastes meet the
delisting levels set in Paragraph (1)
and they have received written approval
to do so from EPA.
(5) Data Submittals: Tokusen must submit
the information described below. If
Tokusen 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. Tokusen
must:
(A) Submit the data obtained through
Paragraph 3 to the Section 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 Arkansas 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 46148]]
(6) Reopener: (A) If, anytime after
disposal of the delisted waste, Tokusen
possesses or is otherwise made aware of
any environmental data (including but
not limited to leachate data or
groundwater monitoring data) or any
other data relevant to the delisted
waste indicating that any constituent
identified for the delisting
verification testing is at level higher
than the delisting level allowed by the
Regional Administrator or his delegate
in granting the petition, then the
facility must report the data, in
writing, to the Regional Administrator
or his delegate within 10 days of first
possessing or being made aware of that
data.
(B) If the annual testing of the waste
does not meet the delisting requirements
in Paragraph 1, Tokusen 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 Tokusen 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 notice shall
include a statement of the proposed
action and a statement providing the
facility with an opportunity to present
information as to why the proposed
Agency action is not necessary. The
facility shall have 10 days from the
date of the Regional Administrator or
his delegate's notice to present such
information.
(E) Following the receipt of information
from the facility described in paragraph
(6)(D) or (if no information is
presented under paragraph (6)(D)) the
initial receipt of information described
in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B), the
Regional Administrator or his delegate
will issue a final written determination
describing the Agency actions that are
necessary to protect human health or the
environment. Any required action
described in the Regional Administrator
or his delegate's determination shall
become effective immediately, unless the
Regional Administrator or his delegate
provides otherwise.
(7) Notification Requirements: Tokusen
must do the following before
transporting the delisted waste: Failure
to provide this notification will result
in a violation of the delisting petition
and a possible revocation of the
decision.
(A) Provide a one-time written
notification to any State Regulatory
Agency to which or through which they
will transport the delisted waste
described above for disposal, 60 days
before beginning such activities.
(B) Update the one-time written
notification if they ship the delisted
waste into a different disposal
facility.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 02-17458 Filed 7-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P