[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 21, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56357-56363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21185]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-7816-9]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a petition
submitted by American Chrome & Chemicals L.P. (ACC) to exclude (or
delist) a certain solid waste generated by its Corpus Christi, Texas
facility from the lists of hazardous wastes. This final rule responds
to the petition submitted by ACC to delist K006 dewatered sludge
generated from the production of chrome oxide green pigments.
After careful analysis and use of the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS), EPA has concluded the petitioned waste is not
hazardous waste. This exclusion applies to 1,450 cubic yards per year
of the dewatered sludge. Accordingly, this final rule excludes the
petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed
of in a Subtitle D landfill.
DATES: Effective Date: September 21, 2004.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this final rule is located at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202, and is available for viewing in EPA Freedom of Information
Act review room on the 7th floor from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for
appointments. The reference number for this docket is [F-03-TXDEL-ACC].
The public may copy
[[Page 56358]]
material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the first 100 pages
and at a cost of $0.15 per page for additional copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Banipal, Section Chief of the
Corrective Action and Waste Minimization Section, Multimedia Planning
and Permitting Division, (6PD-C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202.
For technical information concerning this notice, contact Michelle
Peace, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What Rule Is EPA Finalizing?
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Delisting?
C. What Are the Limits of This Exclusion?
D. How Will ACC Manage the Waste If It Is Delisted?
E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion Effective?
F. How Does This Final Rule Affect States?
II. Background
A. What Is a Delisting?
B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To Delist a Waste?
C. What Information Must the Generator Supply?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What Waste Did ACC Petition EPA To Delist?
B. How Much Waste Did ACC Propose To Delist?
C. What Information Did ACC Present To Support Its Petition To
Delist the Waste?
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Who Submitted Comments on the Proposed Rule?
B. Summary of Comments and EPA Responses
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?
After evaluating the petition, EPA proposed, on November 17, 2003
to exclude the ACC waste from the lists of hazardous waste under
Sec. Sec. 261.31 and 261.32 (see 68 FR 64836). EPA is finalizing the
decision to grant ACC's delisting petition to have its dewatered sludge
(chromic oxide) excluded, or delisted, generated from its process of
manufacturing chromic oxide subject to certain continued verification
and monitoring conditions.
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Delisting?
ACC's petition requests a delisting from the K006 waste listings
under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. ACC does not believe that the
petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA listed it. ACC also
believes no additional constituents or factors could cause the waste to
be hazardous. EPA's review of this petition included consideration of
the original listing criteria, and the additional factors required by
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section
3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)-
(4)(hereinafter all sectional references are to 40 CFR unless otherwise
indicated). In making the final delisting determination, EPA evaluated
the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in
Sec. 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, EPA agrees with
the petitioner that the waste is nonhazardous with respect to the
original listing criteria. (If 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.) 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. 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. EPA
believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the listing criteria
and thus should not be a listed waste. EPA's final decision to delist
waste from ACC's facility is based on the information submitted in
support of this rule, including descriptions of the wastes and
analytical data from the Corpus Christi, Texas facility.
C. What Are the Limits of This Exclusion?
This exclusion applies to the waste described in the April 2002
petition only if the requirements described in 40 CFR part 261,
appendix IX, Table 2 and the conditions contained herein are satisfied.
D. How Will ACC Manage the Waste If It Is Delisted?
The delisted waste stream will be disposed of in a non-hazardous
waste landfill.
E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion Effective?
This rule is effective September 21, 2004. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA, 42 USCA
6930(b)(1), allow rules to become effective in less than six months
after the rule is published when the regulated community does not need
the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the case here
because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the existing
requirements for persons generating hazardous waste. This reduction in
existing requirements also provides a basis for making this rule
effective immediately, upon final publication, under the Administrative
Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 USCA 553(d).
F. How Does This Final Rule Affect States?
Because EPA is issuing this exclusion under the Federal RCRA
delisting program, only states subject to Federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This would exclude states which have
received authorization from EPA to make their own delisting decisions.
The EPA allows states to impose its own non-RCRA regulatory
requirements that are more stringent than the 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, the EPA urges 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,
Oklahoma, 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 ACC transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any
state with delisting authorization, ACC must obtain delisting
authorization from that state before it can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in the State.
II. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition?
A delisting petition is a request from a generator to EPA or
another agency with jurisdiction to exclude or delist, from the RCRA
list of hazardous waste, waste the generator believes should not be
considered hazardous under RCRA.
[[Page 56359]]
B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To Delist a Waste?
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition EPA to
remove their wastes from hazardous waste regulation by excluding them
from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Sec. Sec. 261.31 and
261.32. Specifically, Sec. 260.20 allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through
265 and 268 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Section
260.22 provides generators the opportunity to petition the
Administrator to exclude a waste from a particular generating facility
from the hazardous waste lists.
C. What Information Must the Generator Supply?
Petitioners must provide sufficient information to EPA to allow EPA
to determine that the waste to be excluded does not meet any of the
criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In
addition, the Administrator must determine, where he/she has a
reasonable basis to believe that factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed could
cause the waste to be a hazardous waste and that such factors do not
warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What Waste Did ACC Petition EPA To Delist?
On April 17, 2002, ACC petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists of
hazardous waste contained in Sec. 261.32, dewatered sludge generated
from its facility located in Corpus Christi, Texas. The waste falls
under the classification of listed waste under Sec. 261.30.
B. How Much Waste Did ACC Propose To Delist?
Specifically, in its petition, ACC requested that EPA grant an
exclusion for 1,450 cubic yards per year of the dewatered sludge.
C. What Information Did ACC Present To Support Its Petition To Delist
the Waste?
To support its petition, ACC submitted:
(1) Historical information on past waste generation and management
practices;
(2) Results from four waste samples of the total constituent list
for 40 CFR part 264, appendix IX volatiles, semivolatiles, metals,
pesticides, herbicides, and PCBs;
(3) Results of the constituent list for Appendix IX on Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract;
(4) Results from total oil and grease analyses; and
(5) Multiple pH testing of the petitioned waste.
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Who Submitted Comments on the Proposed Rule
Two comments were received from the general public expressing
opposition to the proposed rule.
B. Summary of the Comments and EPA Responses
The first comment opposed EPA's decision to delist this material
because it places a ``green'' name on dangerous sewage sludges.
It is EPA's position that the waste information presented does not
indicate that the waste will pose a threat to human health or the
environment. The disposal of this material is regulated, just under
Subtitle D regulations. The regulations allow a specific facility to
demonstrate that the waste should not be regulated as a hazardous waste
and ACC has done so.
The second comment opposes EPA's decision because (1) additional
constituents warrant the waste remaining hazardous; (2) accurate ground
water risks have not been made; (3) the test period should cover four
years and not be hurried; and (4) a true environmental organization
should be check and test that the information is true.
It is EPA's position that there are no additional constituents
present in the sludge that warrant retaining the sludge as hazardous
waste. A totals analysis for all the constituents in 40 CFR part 264,
appendix IX was presented as part of the sampling and analysis event
and none of the constituents present pose a threat to human health and
the environment. The ground water risks were modeled and these
conservative results fell within the acceptable range of protection of
human health and the environment. ACC will be required to continuously
evaluate the sludge prior to disposal as long as this exclusion is in
place. The companies typically evaluate years of historical data before
approaching EPA with a petition to delist. Finally, any interested
outside organization can review and check the data of any petition.
That information is available to the public.
V. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory
actions.
The proposal to grant an exclusion is not significant, since its
effect, if promulgated, would be to reduce the overall costs and
economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. This
reduction would be achieved by excluding waste generated at a specific
facility from EPA's lists of hazardous wastes, thus enabling a facility
to manage its waste as nonhazardous.
Because there is no additional impact from 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.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, whenever an
agency is required to publish a general notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public
comment a regulatory flexibility analysis which describes the impact of
the rule on small entities (that is, small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). No regulatory
flexibility analysis is required, however, if the Administrator or
delegated representative certifies that the rule will not have any
impact on 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, EPA hereby certifies that this proposed
regulation, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation, therefore,
does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated
with this proposed rule have been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980 (Pub. L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned
OMB Control Number 2050-0053.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995,
EPA generally must prepare a written
[[Page 56360]]
statement for rules with Federal mandates that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
When such a statement is required for EPA rules, under section 205
of the UMRA EPA must identify and consider alternatives, including the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. EPA must select that alternative,
unless the Administrator explains in the final rule why it was not
selected or it is inconsistent with law.
Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them
on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate for regulatory
purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon state, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector.
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.
IX. 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, EPA 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 EPA. 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.
X. 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 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.
XI. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under Section 12(d) if the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act, EPA 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 EPA 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,
EPA has no need to consider the use of voluntary consensus standards in
developing this final rule.
XII. 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. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This action does not have federalism implications. 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: September 9, 2004.
Carl E. Edlund,
Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Region 6.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is to be
amended as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 56361]]
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
0
2. In Table 2 of Appendix IX of Part 261 add the following waste stream
in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Waste Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 2.--Waste Excluded From Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
American Chrome & Chemical....................... Corpus Christi, Texas.................. Dewatered sludge
(the EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K006)
generated at a
maximum generation
of 1450 cubic yards
per calendar year
after September 21,
2004 and disposed
in a Subtitle D
landfill. ACC must
implement a
verification
program that meets
the following
Paragraphs:
(1) Delisting
Levels: All
leachable
constituent
concentrations must
not exceed the
following levels
(mg/l). The
petitioner must use
the method
specified in 40 CFR
261.24 to measure
constituents in the
waste leachate.
Dewatered
wastewater sludge:
Arsenic-0.0377;
Barium-100.0;
Chromium-5.0;
Thallium-0.355;
Zinc-1130.0.
(2) Waste Holding
and Handling:
(A) ACC is a 90 day
facility and does
not have a RCRA
permit, therefore,
ACC must store the
dewatered sludge
following the
requirements
specified in 40 CFR
262.34, or continue
to dispose of as
hazardous all
dewatered sludge
generated, until
they have completed
verification
testing described
in Paragraph (3),
as appropriate, and
valid analyses show
that paragraph (1)
is satisfied.
(B) Levels of
constituents
measured in the
samples of the
dewatered sludge
that do not exceed
the levels set
forth in Paragraph
(1) are non-
hazardous. ACC can
manage and dispose
the non-hazardous
dewatered 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), ACC must
retreat the batches
of waste used to
generate the
representative
sample until it
meets the levels.
ACC must repeat the
analyses of the
treated waste.
(D) If the facility
does not treat the
waste or retreat it
until it meets the
delisting levels in
Paragraph (1), ACC
must manage and
dispose the waste
generated under
Subtitle C of RCRA.
(E) The dewatered
sludge must pass
paint filter test
as described in SW
846, Method 9095 or
another appropriate
method found in a
reliable source
before it is
allowed to leave
the facility. ACC
must maintain a
record of the
actual volume of
the dewatered
sludge to be
disposed of-site
according to the
requirements in
Paragraph (5).
(3) Verification
Testing
Requirements: ACC
must perform sample
collection and
analyses, including
quality control
procedures,
according to
appropriate methods
such as those found
in SW-846 or other
reliable sources
(with the exception
of analyses
requiring the use
of SW-846 methods
incorporated by
reference in 40 CFR
260.11, which must
be used without
substitution. ACC
must conduct
verification
testing each time
it decides to
evacuate the tank
contents. Four (4)
representative
composite samples
shall be collected
from the dewatered
sludge. ACC shall
analyze the
verification
samples according
to the constituent
list specified in
Paragraph (1) and
submit the
analytical results
to EPA within 10
days of receiving
the analytical
results. If the EPA
determines that the
data collected
under this
Paragraph do not
support the data
provided for the
petition, the
exclusion will not
cover the generated
wastes. The EPA
will notify ACC the
decision in writing
within two weeks of
receiving this
information.
(4) Changes in
Operating
Conditions: If ACC
significantly
changes the process
described in its
petition or starts
any processes 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
the EPA in writing;
they may no longer
handle the wastes
generated from the
new process as
nonhazardous until
the test results of
the wastes meet the
delisting levels
set in Paragraph
(1) and they have
received written
approval to do so
from the EPA.
(5) Data Submittals:
ACC must submit the
information
described below. If
ACC fails to submit
the required data
within the
specified time or
maintain the
required records on-
site for the
specified time, the
EPA, at its
discretion, will
consider this
sufficient basis to
reopen the
exclusion as
described in
Paragraph 6. ACC
must:
[[Page 56362]]
(A) Submit the data
obtained through
Paragraph 3 to the
Section Chief,
Corrective Action
and Waste
Minimization
Section,
Environmental
Protection Agency,
1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733, Mail Code,
(6PD-C) 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 the 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. 1001 and
42 U.S.C. 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 the
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 the EPA and that
the company will be
liable for any
actions taken in
contravention of
the company's RCRA
and CERCLA
obligations
premised upon the
company's reliance
on the void
exclusion.
(6) Reopener:
(A) If, anytime
after disposal of
the delisted waste,
ACC 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 level
higher than the
delisting level
allowed by the
Division Director
in granting the
petition, then the
facility must
report the data, in
writing, to the
Division Director
within 10 days of
first possessing or
being made aware of
that data.
(B) If the
verification
testing of the
waste does not meet
the delisting
requirements in
Paragraph 1, ACC
must report the
data, in writing,
to the Division
Director within 10
days of first
possessing or being
made aware of that
data.
(C) If ACC 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
Division Director
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 Division
Director determines
that the reported
information does
require Agency
action, the
Division Director
will notify the
facility in writing
of the actions the
Division Director
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
Division Director'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 Division
Director 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
Division Director's
determination shall
become effective
immediately, unless
the Division
Director provides
otherwise.
[[Page 56363]]
(7) Notification
Requirements: ACC
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. If
ACC transports the
excluded waste to
or manages the
waste in any state
with delisting
authorization, ACC
must obtain
delisting
authorization from
that state before
it can manage the
waste as
nonhazardous in the
state.
(B) Update the one-
time written
notification if
they ship the
delisted waste to a
different disposal
facility.
(C) Failure to
provide the
notification will
result in a
violation of the
delisting variance
and a possible
revocation of the
exclusion.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 04-21185 Filed 9-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P