[Federal Register: September 23, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 184)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55206-55217]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23se03-10]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW FRL-7562-9]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to grant a petition submitted by Teris
LLC (Teris) to exclude (or delist) a certain solid waste generated by
its El Dorado, Arkansas, facility from the lists of hazardous wastes.
The EPA used the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) in the
evaluation of the impact of the petitioned waste on human health and
the environment.
The EPA 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, the EPA would conclude that Teris' petitioned waste
is nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria and that
the stabilization of the incinerator ash generated from the hazardous
waste incineration facility will adequately reduce the likelihood of
migration of constituents from this waste. The EPA would also conclude
that Teris' process minimizes short-term and long-term threats from the
petitioned waste to human health and the environment.
DATES: The EPA will accept comments until November 7, 2003. The EPA
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 the EPA by October 8,
2003. 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 Corrective Action and Waste
Minimization Section, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD-
C), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202. You should send a third copy to Derick Warrick, P.E.,
Hazardous Waste Division, 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-03-ARDEL-
TERIS]. You may submit your comments electronically to James Harris at
harris.jamesa@epa.gov. You should address requests for a hearing to Steve Gilrein,
Associate Director of RCRA, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
(6PD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Harris (214) 665-8302.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is the EPA Proposing?
B. Why Is the EPA Proposing To Approve This Delisting?
C. How Will Teris Manage the Waste if It Is Delisted?
D. When Would the Proposed Delisting Exclusion Be Finalized?
E. How Would This Action Affect States?
II. Background
A. What Is the History of the Delisting Program?
B. What Is a Delisting Petition, and What Does It Require of a
Petitioner?
C. What Factors Must the EPA Consider In Deciding Whether To
Grant a Delisting Petition?
III. The EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What Wastes Did Teris Petition the EPA To Delist?
B. Who Is Teris and What Process Do They Use To Generate the
Petition Waste?
C. How Did Teris Sample and Analyze the Data In This Petition?
D. What Were the Results of Teris' Analysis?
E. How Did the EPA Evaluate the Risk of Delisting This Waste?
F. What Did the EPA Conclude About Teris' Analysis?
G. What Other Factors Did the EPA Consider In Its Evaluation?
H. What Is the EPA's Evaluation of This Delisting Petition?
IV. Next Steps
A. With What Conditions Must the Petitioner Comply?
B. What Happens if Teris Violates the Terms and Conditions?
V. Public Comments
A. How May I as an Interested Party Submit Comments?
B. How May I Review the Docket or Obtain Copies of the Proposed
Exclusions?
VI. Regulatory Impact
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
X. Executive Order 13045
XI. Executive Order 13084
XII. National Technology Transfer and Advancements Act
XIII. Executive Order 13132 Federalism
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is the EPA Proposing?
The EPA is proposing to grant the delisting petition submitted by
Teris to have its stabilized hazardous waste incinerator ash excluded,
or delisted, from the definition of a hazardous waste.
B. Why Is the EPA Proposing To Approve This Delisting?
Teris' petition requests a delisting for the stabilized ash
generated by its hazardous waste incinerator. Teris does not believe
that the petitioned waste meets the criteria for which the EPA listed
it. Teris also believes no additional constituents or factors could
cause the waste to be hazardous. The EPA's review of this petition
included consideration of the original listing criteria, and the
additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 (HSWA).
[[Page 55207]]
See section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR
260.22(d)(1)-(4). In making the initial delisting determination, the
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,
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, the 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 the Teris facility is based on
the information submitted in support of this rule, including
descriptions of the wastes and analytical data from the El Dorado,
Arkansas facility.
C. How Will Teris Manage the Waste if It Is Delisted?
Teris currently sends the petitioned waste to a hazardous waste
landfill. If the delisting exclusion is finalized, Teris intends to
dispose of the petitioned waste (i.e., stabilized hazardous waste
incinerator ash) in a subtitle D solid waste landfill in Arkansas.
D. When Would the Proposed Delisting Exclusion be Finazlized?
RCRA section 3001(f) specifically requires the EPA to provide
notice and an opportunity for comment before granting or denying a
final exclusion. Thus, the 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 after the EPA addresses public
comments when the regulated facility 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 the 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 who have
received authorization from the EPA to make their own delisting
decisions.
The EPA allows the States to impose their 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.
Delisting petitions approved by the EPA Administrator under 40 CFR
260.22 are effective in the State of Arkansas only after the final rule
has been published in the Federal Register and the rule has been
adopted and approved by the Arkasas Pollution Control and Ecology
Commission in Regulation No. 23.
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
Sec. Sec. 261.31 and 261.32.
The EPA lists 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 Sec. 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, Sec. Sec. 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion
procedure, called delisting, which allows persons to prove that the 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 the EPA or an
authorized State to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes.
The facility petitions the EPA 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 the 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 the 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 hazardous waste characteristics
even if the EPA has ``delisted'' the waste.
C. What Factors Must the EPA Consider in Deciding Whether To Grant a
Delisting Petition?
Besides considering the criteria in Sec. Sec. 260.22(a) and
3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background documents for
the listed wastes, the EPA must consider any factors (including
additional constituents) other than those for which the EPA 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
[[Page 55208]]
disposing of listed hazardous waste. See Sec. 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. The EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What Waste Did Teris Petition the EPA To Delist?
On June 3, 2002, Teris petitioned the EPA to exclude from the lists
of hazardous waste contained in Sec. Sec. 261.31 and 261.32, a
stabilized hazardous waste incinerator ash generated from the facility
located in El Dorado, Arkansas. The waste falls under the
classification of listed waste because of the ``derived-from'' rule in
Sec. 261.3. Specifically, in its petition, Teris requested that the
EPA grant an exclusion for 30,000 cubic yards per calendar year of
stabilized incinerator ash resulting from its hazardous waste thermal
treatment process.
B. Who Is Teris and What Process Do They Use To Generate the Petition
Waste?
Teris is a commercial hazardous waste treatment and storage
facility located in an industrial/commercial setting in the southern
portion of the City of El Dorado, Union County, Arkansas. The facility
is located east of El Dorado, Arkansas.
Teris thermally treats hazardous wastes (including listed hazardous
wastes) that are generated at commercial and industrial facilities
throughout the nation. The facility operates two rotary kilns that are
used to destroy and remove the hazardous organic constituents found in
the waste. These two kilns generate a solid residue (i.e., incinerator
ash) in which most of the organic constituents have been destroyed. The
incinerator meets the 99.99% Destruction and Removal Efficiency
requirement under 40 CFR part 264. This incinerator ash contains trace
amounts of regulated metallic constituents that are not destroyed by
the incineration process. Teris operates a stabilization treatment
system for the incinerator ash that chemically binds the metals so as
to prevent their release into groundwater.
C. How Did Teris Sample and Analyze the Data in This Petition?
To support its petition, Teris submitted:
(1) Historical information on past waste generation and management
practices;
(2) results of the total constituent analysis for volatiles,
semivolatiles, pesticides, herbicides and metals;
(3) results of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) extract for those organics detected in the above total
constituent analysis;
(4) results of the Multiple pH Protocol Procedure for metal
constituents;
(5) results of both total constituent and leachable analysis for
total cyanide and sulfide.
D. What Were the Results of Teris' Analyses?
The EPA believes that the descriptions of the Teris analytical
characterization provide a reasonable basis to approve the petition of
Teris for an exclusion of the hazardous waste incinerator ash. The EPA
believes the data submitted in support of the petition show that the
stabilized hazardous waste incinerator ash is nonhazardous. Analytical
data for the stabilized hazardous waste incinerator ash samples were
used in the Delisting Risk Assessment Software. The data summaries for
detected constituents are presented in Table I. The EPA has reviewed
the sampling procedures used by Teris and has determined they satisfy
the EPA's criteria for collecting representative samples of the
variations in constituent concentrations in the hazardous waste
incinerator ash. The data submitted in support of the petition show
that constituents in Teris' waste are presently below health-based
levels used in the delisting decision-making. The EPA believes that
Teris has successfully demonstrated that the stabilized hazardous waste
incinerator ash is nonhazardous.
Table 1.--Maximum TCLP Constituent Concentrations of the Stabilized Hazardous Incinerator Ash and Corresponding
Delisting Limits \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total constituent TCLP leachate Maximum allowable
Constituent analyses (mg/kg) conc. (mg/l) TCLP conc. (mg/l)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.............................................. 1400.00 0.206 0.206
Arsenic............................................... 537.00 0.0395 0.096
Barium................................................ 4500.00 1.40 21.00
Beryllium............................................. 2.17 0.004 0.416
Cadmium............................................... 49.60 0.0062 0.11
Chromium.............................................. 1560.00 0.036 0.60
Cobalt................................................ 1140.00 0.078 13.14
Copper................................................ 12800.00 0.0243 9113.00
Lead.................................................. 772.00 0.12 0.69
Mercury............................................... 0.15 0.00126 0.025
Nickel................................................ 5190.00 0.11 3.98
Selenium.............................................. 497.00 0.285 0.58
Silver................................................ 212.00 0.007 0.14
Tin................................................... 1760.00 0.48 396.00
Thallium.............................................. 1.75 0.0012 0.088
Vanadium.............................................. 370.00 0.49 1.60
Zinc.................................................. 10300.00 0.0152 2.61
Acenaphthylene........................................ 2.0 ND 0.059
Acetone............................................... 0.052 ND 0.059
Acetophenone.......................................... 1.80 ND 0.01
Aniline............................................... 0.72 ND 0.81
Anthracene............................................ 1.90 ND 0.059
Benzene............................................... 0.21 ND 0.14
Benzo(a)pyrene........................................ 0.70 ND 0.0018
Benzo(ghi)perylene.................................... 0.67 ND 0.0036
[[Page 55209]]
Benzo(b)fluoranthrene................................. 0.70 ND 0.0038
Benzo(k)fluoranthrene................................. 0.70 ND 0.0038
Bis(2-................................................ 0.86 ND 0.114
Carbon disulfide...................................... 0.057 ND 3.80
Chrysene.............................................. 1.90 ND 0.059
Fluoranthene.......................................... 2.30 ND 0.068
Fluorene.............................................. 1.60 ND 0.059
Hexachlorobenzene..................................... 0.70 ND 0.00822
Methylnaphthalene 2-.................................. 0.830 ND 0.059
Naphthalene........................................... 3.40 ND 0.059
Phenanthrene.......................................... 18.0 ND 0.059
Phenol................................................ 1.20 ND 0.039
Pyrene................................................ 3.90 ND 0.067
Styrene............................................... 0.31 ND 1.90
Toluene............................................... 0.078 ND 0.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent found in any one sample. These levels
do not necessarily represent the specific levels found in one sample.
ND Denotes that the constituent was not detected.
E. How Did the EPA Evaluate the Risk of Delisting This Waste?
For this delisting determination, the 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 the
petitioned waste. The EPA applied the most recent version of 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 Teris' petitioned waste on human
health and the environment. A copy of this software can be found on the
World Wide Web at http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/rcra_c/pd-o/dras.htm
.
In assessing potential risks to ground water, the 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 1.0),
the DRAS program can back-calculate the acceptable receptor well
concentrations (referred to as compliance point concentrations) using
standard risk assessment algorithms and the EPA's 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 results in conservative values for the compliance-
point concentrations and ensures that the waste, once removed from
hazardous waste regulation, will not pose a significant threat to human
health or the environment.
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, the EPA is generally unable to predict, and
does not presently control, how a petitioner will manage a waste after
delisting. Therefore, the 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, Teris
has directly disposed of this material in commercial hazardous waste
landfills located at other facilities. Since the Teris waste is
commingled with other wastes in these landfills, no representative
ground water monitoring data specific to the Teris incinerator ash
exists. Therefore, the EPA has determined that it would be unnecessary
to request ground water monitoring data.
The EPA believes that the descriptions made by Teris of the
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 adequately minimized.
[[Page 55210]]
DRAS calculates the maximum allowable concentration of chemical
constituents in the incinerator ash. Since all maximum TCLP
concentrations found in Table I are equal to or less than the maximum
allowable TCLP concentration specified by DRAS and the associated risk
assessment conducted by the EPA, the petitioned waste meets the
applicable delisting criteria. In addition, on the basis of
explanations and analytical data provided by Teris, pursuant to Sec.
260.22, the EPA concludes that the petitioned waste does not exhibit
any of the characteristics of toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, or
reactivity. See Sec. Sec. 261.21, 261.22, and 261.23, respectively.
F. What Did the EPA Conclude About Teris' Analysis?
The EPA concluded, after reviewing Teris' processes that no other
hazardous constituents of concern, other than those for which tested,
are likely to be present or formed as reaction products or by-products
in Teris' wastes. In addition, on the basis of explanations and
analytical data provided by Teris, pursuant to Sec. 260.22, the EPA
concludes that the petitoned wastes do not exhibit any of the
characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. See
Sec. Sec. 261.21, 261.22 and 261.23, respectively.
G. What Other Factors Did the EPA Consider in Its Evaluation?
During the evaluation of this petition, the 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, the EPA believes that exposure to airborne
contaminants from the petitioned waste is unlikely. Therefore, no
appreciable air releases are likely from the stabilized incinerator ash
under any likely disposal conditions. The EPA evaluated the potential
hazards resulting from the unlikely scenario of airborne exposure to
hazardous constituents released from the stabilized incinerator ash 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
the hazardous waste incinerator ash. A description of the EPA's
assessment of the potential impact of incinerator ash, regarding
airborne dispersion of waste contaminants, is presented in the RCRA
public docket for this proposed rule. This docket is designated with
the following code F-03-ARDEL-TERIS.
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, the EPA believes that the
contamination of surface water through runoff from the waste disposal
area is very unlikely. Nevertheless, the EPA evaluated the potential
impacts on surface water if the stabilized incinerator ash 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 the EPA Chronic Water Quality Criteria for
aquatic organisms (USEPA, OWRS, 1987). The EPA, therefore, concluded
that this stabilized hazardous waste incinerator ash is not a present
or potential substantial hazard to human health and the environment via
the surface water exposure pathway.
H. What Is the EPA's Evaluation of This Delisting Petition?
The descriptions by Teris of the hazardous waste process and
analytical characterization, with the proposed verification testing
requirements (as discussed later in this notice), provide a reasonable
basis for the 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 1). The EPA
believes that the thermal treatment and subsequent stabilization
process operated by Teris will substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of hazardous constituents from the petitioned waste. These
treatment processes will also minimize short-term and long-term threats
from the petitioned waste to human health and the environment.
Thus, the EPA believes that it should grant to Teris an exclusion
for the stabilized hazardous waste incinerator ash. The EPA believes
the data submitted in support of the petition show the stabilization
treatment process operated by Teris can render the hazardous waste
incinerator ash nonhazardous.
The EPA has reviewed the sampling procedures used by Teris and has
determined they satisfy the EPA's criteria for collecting
representative samples of variable constituent concentrations in the
hazardous waste incinerator ash. The data submitted in support of the
petition show that constituents in Teris' waste are presently below the
compliance point concentrations used in the delisting decision-making
process and would not pose a substantial hazard to the environment. The
EPA believes that Teris has successfully demonstrated that the
stabilized hazardous waste incinerator ash is nonhazardous.
The EPA therefore proposes to grant an exclusion to Teris, in El
Dorado, Arkansas, for the stabilized hazardous waste incinerator ash
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 stabilized hazardous waste
incinerator ash.
If the EPA finalizes the proposed rule, the EPA will no longer
regulate the stabilized incinerator ash 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, Teris, must comply with the requirements in 40 CFR
part 261, appendix IX, table 1 as amended by this notice. The text
below gives the rationale and details of those requirements.
(1) Delisting Levels
This paragraph provides the levels of constituents that Teris must
test the leachate from the stabilized incinerator ash, below which
these wastes would be considered nonhazardous.
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
[[Page 55211]]
information in the petition. The EPA compiled the inorganic and organic
constituents list from the composition of the waste, descriptions of
the treatment process used by Teris, 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 and total concentrations of the
waste.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling
The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that Teris manages and
disposes of any stabilized hazardous waste incinerator ash that might
contain hazardous levels of inorganic and organic constituents
according to Subtitle C of RCRA. Holding the stabilized hazardous waste
incinerator ash until characterization is complete will protect against
improper handling of hazardous material.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements
Teris must complete a rigorous verification testing program on the
incinerator ash to assure that the stabilized incinerator ash does not
exceed the maximum levels specified in Paragraph (1). If the EPA
determines that the data collected under this Paragraph does not
support the data provided for in the petition, the exclusion will not
cover the tested waste. This verification program operates on two
levels.
The first part of the verification testing program consists of
testing every batch (i.e. roll-off) of incinerator ash for specified
indicator parameters as per Paragraph (1). Levels of constituents
measured in the samples of the stabilized hazardous waste incinerator
ash that do not exceed the levels set forth in Paragraph (1) are
nonhazardous. Teris can manage and dispose the stabilized nonhazardous
incinerator ash according to all applicable solid waste regulations. If
any roll-off fails to meet the specified limits, then Teris must
retreat the batch (i.e., reburn and/or restabilize) until the limits
are met or they must dispose of the waste as hazardous. Organic
indicators are those specified in the Waste Analysis Plan of Teris'
RCRA permit to verify that the incinerator operated as demonstrated in
the trial burn. Analysis for total and TCLP arsenic must be conducted.
The second part of the verification testing program is the
quarterly testing of four representative composite samples of
stabilized incinerator ash for all constituents specified in Paragraph
(1). If Teris demonstrates for two consecutive quarters complete
attainment of all specified limits, then Teris may request approval of
the EPA to reduce the frequency of testing to annually. If, after
review of performance of the treatment system, the EPA finds that
annual testing is adequately protective of human health and the
environment, then the EPA may authorize Teris to reduce the quarterly
comprehensive sampling frequency to an annual basis. If the annual
testing of the waste does not meet the delisting requirements in
Paragraph 1, Teris must notify the EPA according to the requirements in
Paragraph 6. The EPA will then take the appropriate actions necessary
to protect human health and the environment per Paragraph 6. Teris must
provide sampling results that support the rationale that the delisting
exclusion should not be withdrawn.
The exclusion is effective upon publication in the Federal Register
but the disposal cannot begin until the verification sampling is
completed. Disposal is also not authorized if Teris fails to perform
the quarterly and yearly testing as specified herein. Should Teris fail
to conduct the quarterly/yearly testing as specified herein, then
disposal of stabilized incinerator ash as delisted waste may not occur
in the following quarter(s)/year(s) until Teris obtains the written
approval of the EPA.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions
Paragraph (4) would allow Teris the flexibility of modifying its
processes (for example, changes in equipment or change in operating
conditions) to improve its treatment processes. However, Teris must
prove the effectiveness of the modified process and request approval
from the EPA. Teris must manage wastes generated during the new process
demonstration as hazardous waste until it has obtained written approval
and Paragraph (3), is satisfied.
(5) Data Submittals
To provide appropriate documentation that Teris' facility is
properly treating the incinerator ash, Teris must compile, summarize,
and keep delisting records on-site for a minimum of five years. It
should keep all analytical data obtained through Paragraph (3)
including quality control information for five years. Paragraph (5)
requires that Teris furnish these data upon request for inspection by
any employee or representative of the EPA or the State of Arkansas.
If the proposed exclusion is made final, then it will apply only to
30,000 cubic yards per calendar year of stabilized hazardous waste
incinerator ash generated at the Teris facility after successful
verification testing.
The EPA would require Teris to file a new delisting petition under
any of the following circumstances:
(a) If Teris significantly alters the manufacturing process
treatment system except as described in Paragraph (4).
(b) If Teris uses any new manufacturing or production process(es),
or significantly change from the current process(es) described in its
petition; or
(c) If Teris makes any changes that could affect the composition or
type of waste generated.
Teris must manage waste volumes greater than 30,000 cubic yards per
calendar year of stabilized hazardous waste incinerator ash as
hazardous waste until the EPA grants a new exclusion. When this
exclusion becomes final, the management by Teris of the stabilized
incinerator ash covered by this petition would be relieved from
Subtitle C jurisdiction. Teris must either (a) treat, store, or dispose
of the waste in a State permitted on-site facility, or (b) Teris 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 Teris 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. Teris 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 the
EPA to reevaluate the exclusion if a source provides new or additional
information to the EPA. The EPA will evaluate the information on which
it 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 the EPA to deny the petition if presented.
This provision expressly requires Teris 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
the 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 it has the authority under RCRA and the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et seq., to
reopen a
[[Page 55212]]
delisting decision. The EPA may reopen a delisting decision when it
receives new information that calls into question the assumptions
underlying the delisting.
The EPA believes a clear statement of its authority in delistings
is merited in light of the EPA experience. See Reynolds Metals Company
at 62 FR 37694 (July 14, 1997) and 62 FR 63458 (December 1, 1997) where
the delisted waste leached at greater concentrations in the environment
than the concentrations predicted when conducting the TCLP, thus
leading the EPA to repeal the delisting. If an immediate threat to
human health and the environment presents itself, the EPA will continue
to address these situations case by case. Where necessary, the EPA will
make a good cause finding to justify emergency rulemaking. See APA
Sec. 553 (b).
(7) Notification Requirements
In order to adequately track wastes that have been delisted, the
EPA is requiring that Teris provide a one-time notification to any
State regulatory agency through which or to which the delisted waste is
being carried. Teris must provide this notification within 60 days of
commencing this activity.
B. What Happens if Teris Violates the Terms and Conditions?
If Teris violates the terms and conditions established in the
exclusion, the EPA will start procedures to withdraw the exclusion.
Where there is an immediate threat to human health and the environment,
the EPA will evaluate the need for enforcement activities on a case-by-
case basis. The EPA expects Teris to conduct the appropriate waste
analysis and comply with the criteria explained above in Paragraph 1 of
the exclusion.
V. Public Comments
A. How May 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 the
Section Chief of the Corrective Action and Waste Minimization Section,
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD-C), U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202.
Send a third copy to Derick Warrick, P. E., Hazardous Waste Division,
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), P.O. Box 8913,
Little Rock, Arkansas 72219-8913. You should identify your comments at
the top with this regulatory docket number: F-03-ARDEL-TERIS.
You should submit requests for a hearing to Steve Gilrein,
Associate Director of RCRA, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
(6PD-0), U. S. 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 U.S. 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, the 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 the EPA's hazardous waste management regulations.
This reduction would be achieved by excluding waste generated at a
specific facility from the 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 the EPA's hazardous waste regulations and would be limited to one
facility. Accordingly, the 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.
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 (Pub. L. 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), Pub. L. 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995, the
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 the EPA rules, under section
205 of the UMRA the 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 the 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 the EPA's 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.
[[Page 55213]]
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 the 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 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 the EPA. This proposed rule is not
subject to E.O. 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, the 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, the 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 the 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 the 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.
XII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act, the 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 the EPA, the Act requires that the EPA
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 EPA 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 the 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'' are 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, the EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes 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 the 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 EPA 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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous Waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: September 4, 2003.
William Luthans,
Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Region 6.
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 Tables 1, 2 and 3 of Appendix IX of Part 261 add the
following waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as
follows:
[[Page 55214]]
Appendix IX to Part 261--Waste Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 1.--Waste Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Teris LLC............................. El Dorado, AR............. Stabilized hazardous waste incinerator ash
bearing some or all of the following EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers: F001-F012, F019,
F024, F025, F032, F034, F035, F037-F039.
The stabilized hazardous waste incinerator
ash is generated at a maximum rate of
30,000 cubic yards per calendar year after
[publication date of the final rule] and
disposed in a Subtitle D landfill.
For the exclusion to be valid, Teris must
implement a verification testing program
that meets the following Paragraphs:
(1) Delisting Levels: All leachable
concentrations for those constituents must
not exceed the maximum allowable
concentrations in mg/l specified in this
paragraph. Teris must use the leaching
method specified at 40 CFR Part 261.24 to
measure constituents in the waste leachate.
When analyzing for leachable metals, Teris
must perform two runs using the Multiple
Extraction Procedure. One run will use a pH
7.0 leaching medium on inorganic and
organic constituents and the other run will
use a leaching medium adjusted to pH 4.9 on
inorganic constituents.
(A) Inorganic Constituents (from Table 1)
TCLP (mg/l): Antimony--0.206; Arsenic--
0.096; Barium--21.00; Beryllium--0.416;
Cadmium--0.11; Chromium--0.60; Cobalt--
13.14; Copper--9113.00; Lead--0.69;
Mercury--0.025; Nickel--3.98; Selenium--
0.58; Silver--0.14; Tin--396.00; Thallium--
0.088; Vanadium--1.6; Zinc--2.61.
(B) Organic Constituents (from Table 1) TCLP
(mg/l): Acenapthylene--0.059; Acetone--
0.059; Acetophenone--0.01; Aniline--0.81;
Anthracene--0.059; Benzene--0.14;
Benzo(a)pyrene--0.0018; Benzo(ghi)perylene--
0.0036; Benzo(b)fluoranthrene--0.0038;
Benzo(k)fluoranthrene--0.0038; Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate--0.114; Carbon
Disulfide--3.80; Chrysene--0.059;
Fluoranthene--0.068; Fluorene--0.059;
Hexachlorobenzene--0.00822; 2-
Methylnapthalene--0.059; Napthalene--0.059;
Phenanthrene--0.059; Phenol--0.039; Pyrene--
0.067; Styrene--1.90; Toluene--0.08.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
(A) Teris must store the hazardous waste
incinerator ash as described in its RCRA
permit, or continue to dispose of as
hazardous all hazardous waste incinerator
ash generated, until the verification
testing described in Paragraph (3)(A) and
(B), as appropriate, is completed and valid
analyses demonstrate that Condition (3) is
satisfied.
(B) Teris can manage and dispose the
stabilized nonhazardous incinerator ash
according to all applicable solid waste
regulations when levels of constituents
measured in the samples of the stabilized
hazardous waste incinerator ash do not
exceed the levels set forth in Paragraph
(1) for two consecutive quarters.
(C) If constituent levels in a sample exceed
any of the delisting levels set in
Paragraph (1), Teris must retreat the
batches of incinerator waste used to
generate the representative sample until
they meet the levels specified in Paragraph
1. Teris must repeat the analyses of the
treated waste.
(D) If the facility has not treated the
incinerator ash as necessary to achieve the
limits in Paragraph (1), then Teris must
either manage and dispose the waste
generated under Subtitle C of RCRA, or
retreat the incinerator ash until it meets
the requirements specified in Paragraph
(1).
(3) Verification Testing Requirements: Teris
must perform sample collection and
analyses, including quality control
procedures, according to SW-846
methodologies.
(A) Verification Testing: At quarterly
intervals for one year after the EPA grants
the final exclusion, Teris must do the
following:
(i) Collect four representative composite
samples of roll-off of the hazardous waste
incinerator ash.
(ii) Analyze each sample for all
constituents listed in Paragraph 1. All
samples exceeding delisting levels in
Paragraph 1 will be retested. Any roll-off
exceeding the delisting levels listed in
Paragraph (1) must be retreated or disposed
as hazardous waste in a Subtitle C
landfill.
(iii) Within sixty (60) days after this
exclusion becomes final, Teris will report
initial verification analytical test data,
including analytical quality control
information for the first thirty (30) days
of operation after this exclusion becomes
final of the stabilized incinerator ash
treatment process. If levels of
constituents measured in the samples of the
stabilized hazardous waste incinerator ash
that do not exceed the levels set forth in
Paragraph (1) are also nonhazardous in two
consecutive quarters after the first thirty
(30) days of operation after this
exclusion, Teris can manage and dispose the
stabilized nonhazardous incinerator ash
according to all applicable solid waste
regulations.
(B) Quarterly Testing:
(i) Teris must test four representative
composite samples of the stabilized
incinerator ash for all constituents listed
in Paragraph (1) at least once per calendar
quarter.
[[Page 55215]]
(ii) Once the analytical results submitted
under Paragraph (3)(B)(i) show two
consecutive quarters below the delisting
levels in Paragraph (1), Teris may then
request that the EPA not require quarterly
testing. After the EPA notifies Teris in
writing, the company may end quarterly
testing.
(iii) Following cancellation of the
quarterly testing, Teris must continue to
test a representative composite sample
(according to SW-846 methodologies) for all
constituents listed in Paragraph (1) at
least annually after the effective date of
the final exclusion.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If
Teris 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), it must notify the EPA in
writing; it 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
it has received written approval to do so
from the EPA.
(5) Data Submittals: Teris must submit the
information described below. If Teris 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. Teris must:
(A) Submit the data obtained through
Paragraph 3 to the Section Chief, Region 6
Oklahoma/Texas Section, U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, Mail
Code, (6PD-O) within the time specified.
(B) Compile records of analytical data from
Paragraph (3), summarized, and maintained
on-site for a minimum of five years.
(C) Furnish these records and data when
either the 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. 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 Teris 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 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 either the quarterly or annual
testing of the waste does not meet the
delisting requirements in Paragraph 1,
Teris 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 Teris 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 the EPA
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 requires action the EPA, 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 the EPA
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.
[[Page 55216]]
(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
EPA 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: Teris must do
following before transporting the delisted
waste:
(A) Provide a one-time written notification
to any State Regulatory Agency to which or
through which it will transport the
delisted waste described above for
disposal, 60 days before beginning such
activities.
(B) Update the one-time written notification
if Teris ships the delisted waste into a
different disposal facility.
(C) Failure to provide this notification
will result in a violation of the delisting
variance and a possible revocation of the
decision.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Waste Excluded From Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Teris LLC............................. El Dorado, AR............. Stabilized hazardous waste incinerator ash
(at a maximum generation of 30,000 cubic
yards per calendar year) bearing some or
all of the following EPA Hazardous Waste
Numbers: K001-K011, K013-K052, K060-K062,
K064-K066, K069, K071, K073, K083-K088,
K090-K091, K093-K118, K123-K126, K131-K132,
K136, K141-K145, K147-K151, K156-K161, K169-
K172, K174-K180 generated at Teris. Teris
must implement the testing program
described in Table 1. Waste Excluded From
Non-Specific Sources for the petition to be
valid.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Waste Excluded From Commercial Chemical Products, Off-Specification Species, Container Residues, and
Soil Residues Thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Teris LLC............................. El Dorado, AR............. Stabilized hazardous waste incinerator ash
(at a maximum generation of 30,000 cubic
yards per calendar year) bearing some or
all of the following EPA Hazardous Waste
Numbers: P001-P008, P010-P018, P020-P024,
P026-P031, P033-P034, P036-P051, P054, P056-
P060, P062-P064, P066-P078, P081-P082, P084-
P085, P087-P089, P092-P099, P101-P106, P108-
P116, P118-P123, P127-P128, P185, P188-
P192, P194, P196-P199, P201-P205, U001-
U012, U014-U039, U041-U053, U055-U064, U066-
U099, U101-U103, U105-U138, U140-U174, U176-
U194, U196-U197, U200-U211, U213-U223, U225-
U228, U234-U240, U243-U244, U246-U249,
U271, U277-U280, U328, U353, U359, U364-
U367, U372-U373, U375-U379, U381-U396, U400-
U404, U407, and U409-U411 generated at
Teris. Teris must implement the testing
program described in Table 1. Waste
Excluded From Non-Specific Sources Thereof
for the petition to be valid.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 55217]]
[FR Doc. 03-24120 Filed 9-22-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P