[Federal Register: May 27, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 103)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30227-30232]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27my04-17]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[FRL-7667-5]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ``the Agency'' or ``we'') in this preamble is
granting a petition submitted by Bekaert Corporation (Bekaert) to
exclude (or delist) a certain solid waste generated by its Dyersburg,
Tennessee facility from
[[Page 30228]]
the lists of hazardous wastes. Sludge generated from the treatment of
wastewaters generated from electroplating processes are listed as
hazardous waste number F006 under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
Today's action conditionally excludes the petitioned waste from the
list of hazardous wastes only if the waste is disposed of in a Subtitle
D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a State to
manage industrial solid waste.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on May 27, 2004.
ADDRESSES: The RCRA regulatory docket for this final rule, number
R4DLP-0401-Bekaert, is located at the RCRA Enforcement and Compliance
Branch, Waste Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4,
61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, and is available for
viewing from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. Call Daryl Himes at (404) 562-8614 for appointments. The
public may copy material from the regulatory docket at $0.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general and technical information
about this final rule, contact Daryl Himes, South Enforcement and
Compliance Section, (Mail Code 4WD-RCRA), RCRA Enforcement and
Compliance Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Sam
Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303 or call (404) 562-8614.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition, and What Does It Require of
Petitioner?
B. What Regulations Allow a Waste To Be Delisted?
II. Bekaert's Delisting Petition
A. What Wastes Did Bekaert Petition the EPA To Delist?
B. What Information Must the Generator Supply?
C. What Information Did Bekaert Submit To Support this Petition?
III. EPA's Evaluation and Final Rule
A. What Decision Is EPA Finalizing and Why?
B. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion?
C. When Is the Delisting Effective?
D. How Does This Action Affect the States?
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
V. Regulatory Impact
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
IX. Executive Order 13045
X. Executive Order 13084
XI. National Technology Transfer and Advancements Act
XII. Executive Order 13132 Federalism
I. Background
A. 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 40 CFR 260.22, a petitioner must prove that the
waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics
(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.
B. What Regulations Allow a Waste To Be Delisted?
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, a generator may petition the EPA to
remove its wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding it from the
lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32.
Specifically, 40 CFR 260.20 allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or evoke any provision of parts 260 through
266, 268, and 273 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 40
CFR 260.22 provides a generator the opportunity to petition the
Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator specific'' basis from
the hazardous waste lists.
II. Bekaert's Delisting Petition
A. What Wastes Did Bekaert Petition the EPA To Delist?
On October 28, 2002, Bekaert petitioned the EPA to exclude from the
lists of hazardous waste contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32, a
dewatered WWTP sludge generated from the facility located in Dyersburg,
Tennessee. The waste (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006) is generated by
treating wastewater from the copper and zinc electroplating of steel
cords for the automobile tire industry. Specifically, in its petition,
Bekaert requested that the EPA grant an exclusion for 1250 cubic yards
per calendar year of dewatered WWTP sludge resulting from the treatment
of waste waters from an electroplating operation at its facility.
B. What Information Must the Generator Supply?
A generator must provide sufficient information to allow the EPA to
determine that the waste does not meet any of the criteria for which it
was listed as a hazardous waste. In addition, where there is a
reasonable basis to believe that factors other than those for which the
waste was listed (including additional constituents) could cause the
waste to be hazardous, the Administrator must determine that such
factors do not warrant retaining the waste as hazardous.
C. What Information Did Bekaert Submit To Support This Petition?
To support its petition, Bekaert submitted detailed chemical and
physical analysis of the dewatered WWTP sludge generated by its
facility.
III. EPA's Evaluation and Final Rule
A. What Decision Is EPA Finalizing and Why?
Today the EPA is finalizing an exclusion for 1250 cubic yards per
calendar year of dewatered WWTP sludge resulting from the treatment of
waste waters from an electroplating operation at its facility in
Dyersburg, Tennessee.
Bekaert petitioned EPA to exclude, or delist, the dewatered WWTP
sludge because Bekaert believes that the petitioned waste does not meet
the criteria for which it was listed and that there are no additional
constituents or factors which could cause the waste to be hazardous.
Review of this petition included consideration of the original listing
criteria, as well as the additional factors required by the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section 222 of HSWA, 42
United States Code (U.S.C.) 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)-(4).
On February 20, 2004, EPA proposed to exclude or delist Bekaert's
dewatered WWTP sludge from the treatment of waste waters from an
electroplating operation from the list of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR
261.31 and accepted public comment on the proposed rule (69 FR 7888).
EPA received no comments on the proposed rule and for the reasons
stated in both the proposal and this document, EPA believes that
[[Page 30229]]
Bekaert's waste should be excluded from hazardous waste control.
B. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion?
Bekaert must dispose of the WWTP sludge resulting from the
treatment of waste waters from an electroplating operation at its
facility in a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or
registered by a state to manage industrial waste. Any amount of WWTP
sludge which is generated in excess of 1250 cubic yards per calendar
year is not considered delisted under this exclusion. This exclusion is
effective only if all conditions contained in today's rule are
satisfied.
C. When Is the Delisting Effective?
This rule is effective May 27, 2004. The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. This rule
reduces rather than increases the existing requirements and, therefore,
is effective immediately upon publication under the Administrative
Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
D. How Does This Action Affect the States?
Because EPA is issuing today's 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.
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.
EPA has also authorized some states to administer a delisting
program in place of the federal program to make state delisting
decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized
states. If Bekaert transports the petitioned waste to or manages the
waste in any state with delisting authorization, Bekaert must obtain a
delisting from that state before it can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in the state. Delisting petitions approved by the EPA
Administrator under 40 CFR 260.22 are effective in the State of
Tennessee only after the final rule has been published in the Federal
Register.
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
No comments were received from the public pursuant to the proposed
rule delisting this action.
V. 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.
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 (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
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. Therefore, this regulation
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,
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. The
alternatives must include 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.
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.
IX. Executive Order 13045
The Executive Order 13045 is entitled ``Protection of Children from
[[Page 30230]]
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 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, 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.
XI. 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.
XII. 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.
Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Section 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: May 18, 2004.
J. Scott Gordon,
Acting Director, Waste Management Division, Region 4.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended as
follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
0
2. Tables 1, 2 and 3 of appendix IX of part 261 are amended by adding
the following entry in alphabetical order in each table to read as
follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Waste Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bekaert Corp....................... Dyersburg, TN...................... Dewatered wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste
Nos. F006) generated at a maximum
rate of 1250 cubic yards per calendar
year after May 27, 2004, and disposed
in a Subtitle D landfill.
For the exclusion to be valid, Bekaert
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. Bekaert must use the
leaching method specified at 40 CFR
261.24 to measure constituents in the
waste leachate.
(A) Inorganic Constituents TCLP (mg/
l): Cadmium--0.672; Chromium--5.0;
Nickel--127; Zinc--1260.0.
(B) Organic Constituents TCLP (mg/l):
Methyl ethyl ketone--200.0.
[[Page 30231]]
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
(A) Bekaert must accumulate the
hazardous waste dewatered WWTP sludge
in accordance with the applicable
regulations of 40 CFR 262.34 and
continue to dispose of the dewatered
WWTP sludge as hazardous waste.
(B) Once the first quarterly sampling
and analyses event described in
paragraph (3) is completed and valid
analyses demonstrate that no
constituent is present in the sample
at a level which exceeds the
delisting levels set in paragraph
(1), Bekaert can manage and dispose
of the dewatered WWTP sludge as
nonhazardous according to all
applicable solid waste regulations.
(C) If constituent levels in any
sample taken by Bekaert exceed any of
the delisting levels set in paragraph
(1), Bekaert must do the following:
(i) notify EPA in accordance with
paragraph (7) and (ii) manage and
dispose the dewatered WWTP sludge as
hazardous waste generated under
Subtitle C of RCRA.
(D) Quarterly Verification Testing
Requirements: Upon this exclusion
becoming final, Bekaert may begin the
quarterly testing requirements of
paragraph (3) on its dewatered WWTP
sludge.
(3) Quarterly Testing Requirements:
Upon this exclusion becoming final,
Bekaert may perform quarterly
analytical testing by sampling and
analyzing the dewatered WWTP sludge
as follows:
(A)(i) Collect four representative
composite samples of the hazardous
waste dewatered WWTP sludge at
quarterly (ninety (90) day) intervals
after EPA grants the final exclusion.
The first composite sample may be
taken at any time after EPA grants
the final approval.
(ii) Analyze the samples for all
constituents listed in paragraph (1).
Any roll-offs from which the
composite sample is taken exceeding
the delisting levels listed in
paragraph (1) must be disposed as
hazardous waste in a Subtitle C
landfill.
(iii) Within forty-five (45) days
after taking its first quarterly
sample, Bekaert will report its first
quarterly analytical test data to
EPA. If levels of constituents
measured in the sample of the
dewatered WWTP sludge do not exceed
the levels set forth in paragraph (1)
of this exclusion, Bekaert can manage
and dispose the nonhazardous
dewatered WWTP sludge according to
all applicable solid waste
regulations.
(4) Annual Testing:
(A) If Bekaert completes the quarterly
testing specified in paragraph (3)
above and no sample contains a
constituent with a level which
exceeds the limits set forth in
paragraph (1), Bekaert may begin
annual testing as follows: Bekaert
must test one representative
composite sample of the dewatered
WWTP sludge for all constituents
listed in paragraph (1) at least once
per calendar year.
(B) The sample for the annual testing
shall be a representative composite
sample (according to SW-846
methodologies) for all constituents
listed in paragraph (1).
(C) The sample for the annual testing
taken for the second and subsequent
annual testing events shall be taken
within the same calendar month as the
first annual sample taken.
(5) Changes in Operating Conditions:
If Bekaert 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.
(6) Data Submittals: Bekaert must
submit the information described
below. If Bekaert 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
(7). Bekaert must:
(A) Submit the data obtained through
paragraph (3) to the Chief, North
Section, RCRA Enforcement and
Compliance Branch, Waste Division, U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia, 30303, 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
Tennessee 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.''
[[Page 30232]]
(7) Reopener:
(A) If, anytime after disposal of the
delisted waste Bekaert 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 ten (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), Bekaert must report
the data, in writing, to the Regional
Administrator or his delegate within
ten (10) days of first possessing or
being made aware of that data.
(C) If Bekaert 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 notification 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
ten (10) days from the date of the
Regional Administrator or his
delegate's notice to present such
information.
(E) Following the receipt of
information from the facility
described in paragraph (6)(D) or (if
no information is presented under
paragraph (6)(D)) the initial receipt
of information described in
paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B), the
Regional Administrator or his
delegate will issue a final written
determination describing the 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.
(8) Notification Requirements: Bekaert
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, sixty
(60) days before beginning such
activities.
(B) Update the one-time written
notification if Bekaert 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.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 04-11927 Filed 5-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P