[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 23, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54770-54780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21228]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R06-RCRA-2008-0457; SW-FRL-8713-1]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a petition submitted by Cooper
Crouse-Hinds (C-H) to exclude (or delist) a wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) sludge and filter sand (collectively, sludge) generated by C-H
in Amarillo, TX from the lists of hazardous wastes. EPA used the
Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) in the evaluation of the
impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the environment.
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, EPA would conclude that C-H's petitioned waste is
non-hazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. EPA would
also conclude that C-H's process minimizes short-term and long-term
threats from the petitioned waste to human health and the environment.
DATES: We will accept comments until October 23, 2008. We will stamp
comments postmarked after the close of the comment period as ``late.''
These ``late'' comments may not be considered in formulating a final
decision.
Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by October 8, 2008. The
request must contain the information described in Sec. 260.20(d).
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
RCRA-2008-0457 by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov: follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
2. E-mail: [email protected].
3. Mail: Youngmoo Kim, Environmental Protection Agency, Multimedia
Planning and Permitting Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 6PD-C, 1445
Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202.
4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Youngmoo
Kim, Environmental Protection Agency, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 6PD-C, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-
2008-0457. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://
[[Page 54771]]
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket. All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, RCRA Branch, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202. The
hard copy RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule, EPA-R06-RCRA-
2008-0457, is available for viewing from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The public may copy
material from the regulatory docket at no cost for the first 100 pages
and at $0.15 per page for additional copies. EPA requests that you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The interested persons wanting to
examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at
least 24 hours in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information regarding
the Cooper Crouse-Hinds petition, contact Youngmoo Kim at 214-665-6788
or by e-mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA proposing?
B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this delisting?
C. How will C-H 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 EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a
delisting petition?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What waste did C-H petition EPA to delist?
B. Who is C-H and what process does it use to generate the
petitioned waste?
C. How did C-H sample and analyze the data in this petition?
D. What were the results of C-H's analyses?
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
F. What changes have been made to the DRAS model?
G. What did EPA conclude about C-H's analysis?
H. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
I. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
IV. Next Steps
A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?
B. What happens if C-H 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
exclusion?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing:
(1) To grant C-H's delisting petition to have its WWTP sludge
excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a hazardous waste; and
subject to certain verification and monitoring conditions.
(2) To use the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) to
evaluate the potential impact of the petitioned waste on human health
and the environment. The Agency used this model to predict the
concentration of hazardous constituents released from the petitioned
waste, once it is disposed.
B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this delisting?
C-H's petition requests an exclusion from the F006 waste listing
pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. C-H does not believe that the
petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA listed it. C-H also
believes no additional constituents or factors could cause the waste to
be hazardous. EPA's review of this petition included consideration of
the original listing criteria and the additional factors required by
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section
3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(1)-(4)
(hereinafter all sectional references are to 40 CFR unless otherwise
indicated). In making the initial delisting determination, EPA
evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors
cited in Sec. Sec. 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, EPA
agrees with the petitioner that the waste is non-hazardous with respect
to the original listing criteria. If EPA had found, based on this
review, that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for
which the waste was originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny
the petition. EPA evaluated the waste with respect to other factors or
criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that
such additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA
considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the concentration of the
constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to
bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from
the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned
waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste variability. EPA
believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the listing criteria
and thus should not be a listed waste. EPA's proposed decision to
delist waste from C-H is based on the information submitted in support
of this rule, including descriptions of the wastes and analytical data
from the Amarillo, TX facility.
C. How will C-H manage the waste, if it is delisted?
If the sludge is delisted, the WWTP sludge from C-H will be
disposed of at the following RCRA Subtitle D lined landfill with a
leachate collection system: The Allied Waste Service Southwest Subtitle
D landfill in Canyon, Texas.
D. When would the proposed delisting exclusion be finalized?
RCRA section 3001(f) specifically requires EPA to provide a notice
and an opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final
exclusion. Thus, EPA will not grant the exclusion until it addresses
all timely public comments (including those at public hearings, if any)
on this proposal.
RCRA section 3010(b)(1) at 42 USCA 6930(b)(1), allows rules to
become effective in less than six months when the regulated facility
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the
case here, because this rule, if finalized, would
[[Page 54772]]
reduce the existing requirements for persons generating hazardous
wastes.
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 states?
Because EPA is issuing this exclusion under the Federal RCRA
delisting program, only states subject to Federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This would exclude states which have
received authorization from EPA to make their own delisting decisions.
EPA allows states to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory
requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929. These more stringent requirements may include a
provision that prohibits a Federally issued exclusion from taking
effect in the state. Because a dual system (that is, both Federal
(RCRA) and state (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's
waste, 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 (for example, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, Georgia, Illinois) to administer a RCRA delisting program in
place of the Federal program, that is, to make state delisting
decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized
states unless that state makes the rule part of its authorized program.
If C-H transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any
state with delisting authorization, C-H must obtain delisting
authorization from that state before it can manage the waste as non-
hazardous in the state.
II. Background
A. What is the history of the delisting program?
EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from non-specific
and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its final and
interim final regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA. EPA has
amended this list several times and published it in Sec. Sec. 261.31
and 261.32.
EPA lists these wastes as hazardous because: (1) The wastes
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), (2) the wastes
meet the criteria for listing contained in Sec. Sec. 261.11(a)(2) or
(a)(3), or (3) the wastes are mixed with or derived from the treatment,
storage or disposal of such characteristic and listed wastes and which
therefore become hazardous under Sec. Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iv) or
(c)(2)(i), known as the ``mixture'' or ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively.
Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste
described in these regulations or resulting from the operation of the
mixture or derived-from rules generally is hazardous, a specific waste
from an individual facility 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 EPA
should not regulate a specific waste from a particular generating
facility as a hazardous waste.
B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a
petitioner?
A delisting petition is a request from a facility to EPA or an
authorized state to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes.
The facility petitions 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 EPA lists a waste
are in part 261 and further explained in the background documents for
the listed waste.
In addition, under Sec. 260.22, a petitioner must prove that the
waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (that
is, ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and present
sufficient information for EPA to decide whether factors other than
those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a
hazardous waste. (See part 261 and the background documents for the
listed waste.)
Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm whether their
waste remains non-hazardous based on the hazardous waste
characteristics even if EPA has ``delisted'' the waste.
C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a
delisting petition?
Besides considering the criteria in Sec. 260.22(a) and section
3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background documents for
the listed wastes, EPA must consider any factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which EPA listed the waste, if a
reasonable basis exists that these additional factors could cause the
waste to be hazardous.
EPA must also consider as hazardous waste mixtures containing
listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or
disposing of listed hazardous waste. See Sec. 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. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What waste did C-H petition EPA to delist?
On March 25, 2008, C-H petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists of
hazardous wastes contained in Sec. 261.31, WWTP sludge (F006)
generated from its facility located in Amarillo, Texas. The waste falls
under the classification of listed waste pursuant to Sec. 261.31.
Specifically, in its petition, C-H requested that EPA grant a standard
exclusion for 819 cubic yards per year of the WWTP sludge.
B. Who is C-H and what process does it use to generate the petitioned
waste?
The facility manufactures electrical fittings plated zinc for
corrosion resistance. Non-current electrical wiring system products
commonly called conduit fitting have been manufactured at this facility
since 1982. The zinc plating system is non-cyanide containing zinc
chloride to electroplate zinc onto cast gray iron electrical fittings
to reduce the potential for the fittings to corrode when installed in
outdoor or chemical environment. The sludge is generated by wastewater
treatment of the zinc plating rinse water to remove oil, grease and
metals.
The sludge is transferred to filter press and separate particles
from the liquid, creating the filter press sludge cake. The final stage
of wastewater treatment system includes two sand filters that serve to
polish the discharged water. The sludge cake and used sands are listed
as listed hazardous, F006 and disposed in a RCRA Subtitle C permitted
hazardous waste landfill in Emelle, Alabama.
[[Page 54773]]
C. How did C-H sample and analyze the data in this petition?
To support its petition, C-H submitted:
(1) Historical information on waste generation and management
practices;
(2) Analytical results from four samples for total concentrations
of compounds of concern (COCs);
(3) Analytical results from four samples for Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract values of COCs; and
(4) Multiple pH testing for the petitioned waste.
D. What were the results of C-H's analyses?
EPA believes that the descriptions of the C-H analytical
characterization provide a reasonable basis to grant C-H's petition for
an exclusion of the WWTP sludge. EPA believes the data submitted in
support of the petition show the WWTP sludge is non-hazardous.
Analytical data for the WWTP sludge samples were used in the DRAS to
develop delisting levels. The data summaries for COCs are presented in
Table I. EPA has reviewed the sampling procedures used by C-H and has
determined that it satisfies EPA criteria for collecting representative
samples of the variations in constituent concentrations in the WWTP
sludge. In addition, the data submitted in support of the petition show
that constituents in C-H's waste are presently below health-based
levels used in the delisting decision-making. EPA believes that C-H has
successfully demonstrated that the WWTP sludge is non-hazardous.
Table 1--Analytical Results/Maximum Allowable Delisting Concentration
[Wastewater Treatment Sludge--Cooper Crouse-Hinds, Amarillo, Texas]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum allowable
Constituents Maximum total (mg/ Maximum TCLP (mg/ TCLP delisting
kg) L) level (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic................................................ <2.00 0.072 0.0759
Barium................................................. 11.2 1.08 (100)
Benzene................................................ <0.02 0.00218 (0.5)
Cadmium................................................ 1.58 0.006 0.819
Cooper................................................. 7.41 0.049 216
Iron................................................... 26200 0.197 1.24
Manganese.............................................. 693 1.60 145
Nickel................................................. 4.71 0.014 119
Zinc................................................... 27300 1.51 1810
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. These levels represent the highest constituent concentration found in any one sample and do not necessarily
represent the specific level found in one sample.
2. The delisting levels are from the DRAS analyses except the chemicals with a parenthesis which are the TCLP
regulatory levels.
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
The worst case scenario for management of the sludge was modeled
for disposal in a landfill. EPA used such information gathered to
identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground water, surface water,
soil, air) for hazardous constituents present in the sludge. EPA
determined that disposal in a Subtitle D landfill is the most
reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for the wastes. In assessing
potential risks to ground water, EPA used the maximum estimated waste
volumes and the maximum reported extract concentrations as inputs to
the DRAS program to estimate the constituent concentrations in the
ground water at a hypothetical receptor well down gradient from the
disposal site. Using the risk level (carcinogenic risk of
10-5 and non-cancer hazard index of 0.1), the DRAS program
can back-calculate the acceptable receptor well concentrations
(referred to as compliance-point concentrations) using standard risk
assessment algorithms and Agency health-based numbers. Using the
maximum compliance-point concentrations and 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 ground water.
EPA believes that the EPACMTP fate and transport model represents a
reasonable worst-case scenario for possible ground water contamination
resulting from disposal of the petitioned waste in a landfill, and that
a reasonable worst-case scenario is appropriate when evaluating whether
a waste should be relieved of the protective management constraints of
RCRA Subtitle C. The use of some reasonable worst-case scenarios
resulted in conservative values for the compliance-point concentrations
and ensured that the waste, once removed from hazardous waste
regulation, will not pose a significant threat to human health and/or
the environment. The DRAS also uses the maximum estimated waste volumes
and the maximum reported total concentrations to predict possible risks
associated with releases of waste constituents through surface pathways
(e.g., volatilization or wind-blown particulate from the landfill). As
in the above ground water analyses, the DRAS uses the risk level, the
health-based data and standard risk assessment and exposure algorithms
to predict maximum compliance-point concentrations of waste
constituents at a hypothetical point of exposure. Using fate and
transport equations, the DRAS uses the maximum compliance-point
concentrations and back-calculates the maximum allowable waste
constituent concentrations (or ``delisting levels'').
In most cases, because a delisted waste is no longer subject to
hazardous waste control, EPA is generally unable to predict, and does
not presently control, how a petitioner will manage a waste after
delisting. Therefore, EPA currently believes that it is inappropriate
to consider extensive site-specific factors when applying the fate and
transport model. EPA does control the type of unit where the waste is
disposed.
EPA also considers the applicability of ground water monitoring
data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this case, the
facilities have never directly disposed of this material in a solid
waste landfill, so no representative data exists. Therefore, EPA has
[[Page 54774]]
determined that it would be unnecessary to request ground water
monitoring data.
EPA believes that the descriptions of the wastes and analytical
characterization which illustrate the presence of toxic constituents at
lower concentrations in these waste streams provide a reasonable basis
to conclude that the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents
from the petitioned waste will be substantially reduced so that short-
term and long-term threats to human health and the environment are
minimized.
The DRAS results, which calculated the maximum allowable
concentration of chemical constituents in the wastes are presented in
Table 1. Based on the comparison of the DRAS results and maximum TCLP
concentrations found in Table 1, the petitioned wastes should be
delisted because no constituents of concern are likely to be present or
formed as reaction products or by products in the wastes.
F. What changes have been made to the DRAS model?
Since July 2004, EPA has been preparing an update of the DRAS
version 2.0. The software will be released as version 3.0. This
methodology was used to evaluate the C-H petition. The DRAS 3.0
addresses a number of issues with version 2 and improved the fate and
transport modeling.
To estimate the downgradient concentrations of waste leachate
constituents released into ground water, the DRAS utilizes conservative
dilution-attenuation factors (DAFs) taken from Monte-Carlo applications
of U.S. EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration with
Transformation Products (CMTP). DRAS 3.0 includes all new DAFs from new
CMTP modeling runs. The new modeling takes advantage of: updated
saturated flow and transport modules; a new surface impoundment module
and database; model corrections for unrealistic scenarios (like water
tables modeled above the ground surface); new isotherms for metals; and
a revised recharge and infiltration database. As a result, many of the
DAFs used in previous versions of DRAS have changed.
Further affecting the ground water calculation, the relationships
for determining scaling factors used to scale the DAFs to account for
very small waste streams have been updated to reflect the new database
information on landfills and surface impoundments and were also
corrected for a metric conversion of cubic meters to cubic yards. The
new scaling factors are generally higher than those of previous
versions of DRAS, resulting in higher estimated dilution and
attenuation at lower waste volumes for both landfills and surface
impoundments.
The new metals DAFs, based on MINTEQA2 isotherms, can vary as a
function of the landfill leachate concentration. This means that the
effective DAF (including a scaling factor adjustment, if necessary) for
an input concentration may differ significantly with the effective DAF
that corresponds to the allowable leachate concentration. DRAS 3.0 now
displays the DAFs in both the forward calculated risk tables and the
tables of maximum allowable concentrations so that the difference is
evident to the user. The isotherms that vary by leachate concentration
are represented in DRAS by a look-up table with leachate concentrations
paired with DAFs. In the event that an actual concentration input to
DRAS lies between two values in the table, or an allowable receptor
concentration lies between two calculated receptor concentrations from
the table, DRAS 3.0 will linearly and proportionally extrapolate
between the two values to determine the corresponding exposure or
allowable leachate concentration.
EPA changed the calculation for particle emissions caused by
vehicles driving over the waste at the landfill to provide a more
realistic estimate. The estimate depends upon the number of trips per
day landfill vehicles make back and forth over the waste. In previous
versions of DRAS, this value was conservatively set at a 100 trips per
day, corresponding with an extremely high annual waste volume. In DRAS
3.0, a minimum number of trips per day was conservatively assumed from
the Subtitle D landfill survey (7.4 trips per day at the 95th
percentile of values reported). The number of trips per day specific to
the actual waste volume is then added to the minimum to reflect the
impact of very large waste streams. This will considerably reduce the
particle emission estimate for wastes generated at all but the largest
annual volumes.
EPA added a conversion from English to metric tons to the
calculation of particle emissions from waste unloading, resulting in a
decrease of roughly 10% over previous versions of DRAS. We also made a
unit-conversion factor correction to part of the air-volatile pathway
which will reduce the impact to the receptor.
An error in the back-calculation for fish ingestion pathway was
corrected to reflect the difference between freely dissolved and total
water column waste constituent concentrations.
For the estimation of risk and hazard, we made a number of updates
to the forward and back calculations. Previous versions of DRAS assumed
that only 12.5% of particles are absorbed by the receptor's respiratory
system. This is no longer necessary as toxicity reference values for
inhalation currently recommended by U.S. EPA relate risk or hazard
directly to exposure concentration. DRAS 3.0 does not include the 12.5%
reduction. This change significantly increases estimated risks due to
particle inhalation and lowers corresponding allowable concentrations.
DRAS Version 3.0 has a reformulated back calculation of the
allowable leachate concentrations from exposure due to contaminants
volatilized during household water use to match the forward calculation
of risk. In previous versions of DRAS, the forward calculation summed
the risks from exposure to all three evaluated household compartments
(the shower, the bathroom, and the whole house) while the back
calculation based the maximum allowable level on the single most
conservative compartment. The DRAS 3.0 maximum allowable leachate
concentrations are now based on the combined impact of all three
compartments. The house exposure was also expanded to a 900-minute (15
hour) daily exposure to reflect non-working residents who have an
overall 16 hour in-house exposure (the other 1 hour is spent in the
shower and bathroom).
EPA resolved the inconsistencies with the way DRAS chooses limiting
pathways for specific waste constituents in DRAS 3.0.
EPA checked all toxicity reference values in DRAS and updated where
necessary. Approximately 180 changes were made to the toxicity
reference values in DRAS based on data in IRIS, PPRTV, HEAST, NCEA,
CalEPA and other sources. Some route-to-route extrapolations of oral
toxicity data to inhalation exposure have been returned to DRAS 3.0 if
consistent with Agency policy. See the Delisting Technical Support
Document for full accounting of this methodology. The same reference
also includes discussions of toxicity reference choices where the
multiple values were available or where the toxicity reference values
were specific to particular species of constituents.
G. What did EPA conclude about C-H's analysis?
EPA concluded, after reviewing C-H's processes that no other
hazardous constituents of concern, other than those for which tested,
are likely to be present or formed as reaction products
[[Page 54775]]
or by-products in the waste. In addition, on the basis of explanations
and analytical data provided by C-H, pursuant to Sec. 260.22, EPA
concludes that the petitioned waste do not exhibit any of the
characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity.
See Sec. Sec. 261.21, 261.22 and 261.23, respectively.
H. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
During the evaluation of C-H's petition, EPA also considered the
potential impact of the petitioned waste via non-ground water routes
(i.e., air emission and surface runoff). With regard to airborne
dispersion in particular, EPA believes that exposure to airborne
contaminants from C-H's petitioned waste is unlikely. Therefore, no
appreciable air releases are likely from C-H's waste under any likely
disposal conditions. EPA evaluated the potential hazards resulting from
the unlikely scenario of airborne exposure to hazardous constituents
released from C-H's waste in an open landfill. The results of this
worst-case analysis indicated that there is no substantial present or
potential hazard to human health and the environment from airborne
exposure to constituents from C-H's WWTP waste.
I. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
The descriptions of C-H's hazardous waste process and analytical
characterization provide a reasonable basis for EPA to grant the
exclusion. The data submitted in support of the petition show that
constituents in the waste are below the leachable concentrations (see
Table I). EPA believes that C-H's waste, F006 from zinc electroplating
process will not impose any threat to human health and the environment.
Thus, EPA believes C-H should be granted an exclusion for the WWTP
sludge. EPA believes the data submitted in support of the petition show
C-H's WWTP sludge is non-hazardous. The data submitted in support of
the petition show that constituents in C-H's waste are presently below
the compliance point concentrations used in the delisting decision and
would not pose a substantial hazard to the environment. EPA believes
that C-H has successfully demonstrated that the WWTP sludge is non-
hazardous.
EPA therefore, proposes to grant an exclusion to C-H in Amarillo,
Texas, for the WWTP sludge described in its petition. EPA's decision to
exclude this waste is based on descriptions of the treatment activities
associated with the petitioned waste and characterization of the WWTP
sludge.
If EPA finalizes the proposed rule, EPA will no longer regulate the
petitioned waste under parts 262 through 268 and the permitting
standards of part 270.
IV. Next Steps
A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?
The petitioner, C-H, must comply with the requirements in 40 CFR
part 261, appendix IX, Table 1. The text below gives the rationale and
details of those requirements.
(1) Delisting Levels
This paragraph provides the levels of constituents for which C-H
must test the WWTP sludge, below which these wastes would be considered
non-hazardous. EPA selected the set of inorganic and organic
constituents specified in paragraph (1) of 40 CFR part 261, appendix
IX, Table 1, (the exclusion language) based on information in the
petition. EPA compiled the inorganic and organic constituents list from
the composition of the waste, descriptions of C-H's treatment process,
previous test data provided for the waste, and the respective health-
based levels used in delisting decision-making. These delisting levels
correspond to the allowable levels measured in the TCLP concentrations.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling
The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that C-H manages and
disposes of any WWTP sludge that contains hazardous levels of inorganic
and organic constituents according to Subtitle C of RCRA. Managing the
WWTP sludge as a hazardous waste until initial verification testing is
performed will protect against improper handling of hazardous material.
If EPA determines that the data collected under this paragraph do not
support the data provided for in the petition, the exclusion will not
cover the petitioned waste. The exclusion is effective upon publication
in the Federal Register but the disposal as non-hazardous cannot begin
until the verification sampling is completed.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements
C-H must complete a rigorous verification testing program on the
WWTP sludge to assure that the sludge does not exceed the maximum
levels specified in paragraph (1) of the exclusion language. This
verification program operates on two levels. The first part of the
verification testing program consists of testing the WWTP sludge for
specified indicator parameters as per paragraph (1) of the exclusion
language. If EPA determines that the data collected under this
paragraph do not support the data provided for the petition, the
exclusion will not cover the generated wastes. If the data from the
initial verification testing program demonstrate that the leachate
meets the delisting levels, C-H may request quarterly testing. EPA will
notify C-H in writing, if and when it may replace the testing
conditions in paragraph (3)(A) with the testing conditions in (3)(B) of
the exclusion language.
The second part of the verification testing program is the
quarterly testing of representative samples of WWTP sludge for all
constituents specified in paragraph (1) of the exclusion language. EPA
believes that the concentrations of the constituents of concern in the
WWTP sludge may vary over time. Consequently this program will ensure
that the sludge is evaluated in terms of variation in constituent
concentrations in the waste over time.
The proposed subsequent testing would verify that C-H operates a
treatment facility where the constituent concentrations of the WWTP
sludge do not exhibit unacceptable temporal and spatial levels of toxic
constituents. EPA is proposing to require C-H to analyze representative
samples of the WWTP sludge quarterly during the first year of waste
generation. C-H would begin quarterly sampling 60 days after the final
exclusion as described in paragraph (3)(B) of the exclusion language.
EPA, per paragraph 3(C) of the exclusion language, is proposing to end
the subsequent testing conditions after the first year, if C-H has
demonstrated that the waste consistently meets the delisting levels. To
confirm that the characteristics of the waste do not change
significantly over time, C-H must continue to analyze a representative
sample of the waste on an annual basis. Annual testing requires
analyzing the full list of components in paragraph (1) of the exclusion
language. If operating conditions change as described in paragraph (4)
of the exclusion language; C-H must reinstate all testing in paragraph
(1) of the exclusion language. C-H must prove through a new
demonstration that their waste meets the conditions of the exclusion.
If the annual testing of the waste does not meet the delisting
requirements in paragraph (1), C-H must notify EPA according to the
requirements in paragraph (6) of the exclusion language. The facility
must provide sampling results that support
[[Page 54776]]
the rationale that the delisting exclusion should not be withdrawn.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions
Paragraph (4) of the exclusion language would allow C-H the
flexibility of modifying its processes (for example, changes in
equipment or change in operating conditions) to improve its treatment
process. However, C-H must prove the effectiveness of the modified
process and request approval from EPA. C-H must manage wastes generated
during the new process demonstration as hazardous waste until it has
obtained written approval and paragraph (3) of the exclusion language
is satisfied.
(5) Data Submittals
To provide appropriate documentation that C-H's WWTP sludge is
meeting the delisting levels, C-H 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) of the exclusion
language including quality control information for five years.
Paragraph (5) of the exclusion language requires that C-H furnish these
data upon request for inspection by any employee or representative of
EPA or the State of Texas. If the proposed exclusion is made final, it
will apply only to 819 yards per year of wastewater treatment sludge
generated at the C-H after successful verification testing.
EPA would require C-H to file a new delisting petition under any of
the following circumstances:
(a) If it significantly alters the manufacturing process treatment
system except as described in paragraph (4) of the exclusion language;
(b) If it uses any new manufacturing or production process(es), or
significantly changes from the current process(es) described in their
petition; or
(c) If it makes any changes that could affect the composition or
type of waste generated.
C-H must manage waste volumes greater than 819 cubic yards per year
of WWTP waste as hazardous until EPA grants a new exclusion. When this
exclusion becomes final, C-H's management of the wastes covered by this
petition would be relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction, the WWTP
sludge from C-H will be disposed to the RCRA Subtitle D landfill of the
Allied Waste Service Southwest in Canyon, TX.
(6) Reopener
The purpose of paragraph (6) of the exclusion language is to
require C-H 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. C-H must also use this procedure if the waste sample
in the annual testing fails to meet the levels found in paragraph (1).
This provision will allow EPA to reevaluate the exclusion, if a source
provides new or additional information to EPA. EPA will evaluate the
information on which EPA based the decision to see if it is still
correct, or if circumstances have changed so that the information is no
longer correct or would cause EPA to deny the petition, if presented.
This provision expressly requires C-H to report differing site
conditions or assumptions used in the petition in addition to failure
to meet the annual testing conditions within 10 days of discovery. If
EPA discovers such information itself or from a third party, it can act
on it as appropriate. The language being proposed is similar to those
provisions found in RCRA regulations governing no-migration petitions
at Sec. 268.6.
EPA believes that it has the authority under RCRA and the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et seq., to
reopen a delisting decision. EPA may reopen a delisting decision when
it receives new information that calls into question the assumptions
underlying the delisting. EPA believes a clear statement of its
authority in delistings is merited in light of EPA's experience. See
Reynolds Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 and 62 FR 63458 where the
delisted waste leached at greater concentrations in the environment
than the concentrations predicted when conducting the TCLP, thus
leading EPA to repeal the delisting. If an immediate threat to human
health and the environment presents itself, EPA will continue to
address these situations on a case-by-case basis. Where necessary, EPA
will make a good cause finding to justify emergency rulemaking. See APA
553(b).
(7) Notification Requirements
In order to adequately track wastes that have been delisted, EPA is
requiring that C-H provide a one-time notification to any state
regulatory agency through which or to which the delisted waste is being
carried. C-H must provide this notification 60 days before commencing
this activity.
B. What happens if C-H violates the terms and conditions?
If C-H violates the terms and conditions established in the
exclusion, EPA will start procedures to withdraw the exclusion. Where
there is an immediate threat to human health and the environment, EPA
will evaluate the need for enforcement activities on a case-by-case
basis. EPA expects C-H 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?
EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision. Please
send three copies of your comments. Send two copies to Ben Banipal,
Section Chief of the Corrective Action and Waste Minimization Section
(6PD-C), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. Send a
third copy to Jackee Hardy, Waste Division, Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, TX 78711. Identify your
comments at the top with this regulatory docket number: ``EPA-R06-RCRA-
2008-0457.'' You may submit your comments electronically to Youngmoo
Kim at [email protected].
You should submit requests for a hearing to Ben Banipal, Section
Chief of the Corrective Action and Waste Minimization Section (6PD-C),
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, 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 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. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is
[[Page 54777]]
not of general applicability and therefore is not a regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This
rule does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.) because it applies to a particular facility only. Because this
rule is of particular applicability relating to a particular facility,
it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202,
204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public
Law 104-4). Because this rule will affect only a particular facility,
it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as
specified in section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule will affect only a
particular facility, this proposed rule does not have federalism
implications. It will not 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132,
``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule. Similarly, because this rule will
affect only a particular facility, this proposed rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175,
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045,
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency
does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. The basis for this belief is that the Agency used the DRAS
program, which considers health and safety risks to infants and
children, to calculate the maximum allowable concentrations for this
rule. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This rule
does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of
Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 4729, February
7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,
and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report which includes a copy of the rule to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of
rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not
required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular applicability.
Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: August 28, 2008.
Bill Luthans,
Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA
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 Table 1 of Appendix IX of part 261 add the following waste
stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Waste Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 1--Waste Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Cooper Crouse-Hinds........... Amarillo , TX.... Wastewater Treatment
Sludge (EPA
Hazardous Waste No.
F006) generated at a
maximum annual rate
of 819 cubic yards
per calendar year
after [insert
publication date of
the final rule] will
be disposed in
Subtitle D landfill.
For the exclusion to
be valid, C-H must
implement a
verification testing
program that meets
the following
paragraphs:
(1) Delisting Levels:
All leachable
concentrations for
those constituents
must not exceed the
following levels (mg/
l for TCLP): Arsenic-
0.0759; Barium-100;
Cadmium-0.819;
Copper-216; Iron-
1.24; Manganese-145;
Nickel-119; Zinc-18;
Benzene-0.5.
(2) Waste Management:
(A) C-H must manage
as hazardous all
WWTP sludge
generated, until it
has completed
initial verification
testing described in
paragraph (3)(A) and
(B), as appropriate,
and valid analyses
show that
paragraph(1) is
satisfied.
(B) Levels of
constituents
measured in the
samples of the WWTP
sludge that do not
exceed the levels
set forth in
paragraph (1) are
non-hazardous. C-H
can manage and
dispose of the non-
hazardous WWTP
sludge according to
all applicable solid
waste regulations.
[[Page 54778]]
(C) If constituent
levels in a sample
exceed any of the
Delisting Levels set
in paragraph (1) C-H
can collect one
additional sample
and perform
expedited analyses
to verify if the
constituent exceeds
the delisting level.
If this sample
confirms the
exceedance, C-H
must, from that
point forward, treat
the waste as
hazardous until it
is demonstrated that
the waste again
meets the levels in
paragraph (1) C-H
must manage and
dispose of the waste
generated under
Subtitle C of RCRA
from the time that
it becomes aware of
any exceedance.
(D) Upon completion
of the verification
testing described in
paragraph 3(A) and
(B) as appropriate
and the transmittal
of the results to
EPA, and if the
testing results meet
the requirements of
paragraph (1), C-H
may proceed to
manage its WWTP
sludge as non-
hazardous waste. If
subsequent
Verification Testing
indicates an
exceedance of the
Delisting Levels in
paragraph (1), C-H
must manage the WWTP
sludge as a
hazardous waste
until two
consecutive
quarterly testing
samples show levels
below the Delisting
Levels in paragraph
(1).
(3) Verification
Testing
Requirements: C-H
must perform sample
collection and
analyses, including
quality control
procedures, using
appropriate methods.
As applicable to the
method-defined
parameters of
concern, analyses
requiring the use of
SW-846 methods
incorporated by
reference in 40 CFR
260.11 must be used
without
substitution. As
applicable, the SW-
846 methods might
include Methods
8260B, 1311/8260B,
8270C, 1311/8270C,
6010B. 7470, 9034A,
9012A, ASTMD-4982B,
ASTMD-5049, E413.2.
Methods must meet
Performance Based
Measurement System
Criteria in which
the Data Quality
Objectives are to
demonstrate that
representative
samples of C-H's
F006 sludge meet the
delisting levels in
paragraph (1). If
EPA judges the
process to be
effective under the
operating conditions
used during the
initial verification
testing, C-H may
replace the testing
required in
paragraph (3)(A)
with the testing
required in
paragraph (3)(B). C-
H Plant must
continue to test as
specified in
paragraph (3)(A)
until and unless
notified by EPA in
writing that testing
in paragraph (3)(A)
may be replaced by
paragraph (3)(B).
(A) Initial
Verification
Testing: After EPA
grants the final
exclusion, C-H must
do the following:
(i) Within 60 days of
this exclusions
becoming final,
collect eight
samples, before
disposal, of the
WWTP sludge.
(ii) The samples are
to be analyzed and
compared against the
Delisting Levels in
paragraph (1).
(iii) Within sixty
(60) days after this
exclusion becomes
final, C-H will
report initial
verification
analytical test data
for the WWTP sludge,
including analytical
quality control
information for the
first thirty (30)
days of operation
after this exclusion
becomes final. If
levels of
constituents
measured in the
samples of the WWTP
sludge that do not
exceed the levels
set forth in
paragraph (1) are
also non-hazardous
in two consecutive
quarters after the
first thirty (30)
days of operation
after this exclusion
become effective, C-
H can manage and
dispose of the WWTP
sludge according to
all applicable solid
waste regulations.
(B) Subsequent
Verification
Testing: Following
written notification
by EPA, C-H may
substitute the
testing conditions
in (3)(B) for
(3)(A). C-H must
continue to monitor
operating
conditions, and
analyze two
representative
samples of the
wastewater treatment
sludge for each
quarter of operation
during the first
year of waste
generation. The
samples must
represent the waste
generated during the
quarter. After the
first year of
analytical sampling
verification
sampling can be
performed on a
single annual sample
of the wastewater
treatment sludge.
The results are to
be compared to the
Delisting Levels in
paragraph (1).
(C) Termination of
Testing: (i) After
the first year of
quarterly testing,
if the Delisting
Levels in paragraph
(1) are met, C-H may
then request that
EPA not require
quarterly testing.
(ii) Following
cancellation of the
quarterly testing, C-
H Plant must
continue to test a
representative
sample for all
constituents listed
in paragraph (1)
annually.
[[Page 54779]]
(4) Changes in
Operating
Conditions: If C-H
significantly
changes the process
described in its
petition or starts
any processes that
generate(s) the
waste that may or
could significantly
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 EPA
in writing; it may
no longer handle the
wastes generated
from the new process
as non-hazardous
until the wastes
meet the Delisting
Levels set in
paragraph (1) and it
has received written
approval to do so
from EPA.
(5) Data Submittals:
C-H must submit the
information
described below. If
C-H fails to submit
the required data
within the specified
time or maintain the
required records on-
site for the
specified time, EPA,
at its discretion,
will consider this
sufficient basis to
reopen the exclusion
as described in
paragraph 6.C-H
must:
(A) Submit the data
obtained through
paragraph (3) to the
Section Chief,
Corrective Action
and Waste
Minimization
Section, EPA Region
6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733, Mail Code,
(6PD-C) within the
time specified.
(B) Compile records
of operating
conditions and
analytical data from
paragraph (3),
summarized, and
maintained on-site
for a minimum of
five years.
(C) Furnish these
records and data
when EPA or the
state of Texas
requests them for
inspection.
(D) Send along with
all data a signed
copy of the
following
certification
statement, to attest
to the truth and
accuracy of the data
submitted:
Under civil and
criminal penalty of
law for the making
or submission of
false or fraudulent
statements or
representations
(pursuant to the
applicable
provisions of the
Federal Code, which
include, but may not
be limited to, 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1001
and 42 U.S.C. Sec.
6928), I certify
that the information
contained in or
accompanying this
document is true,
accurate and
complete.
As to the (those)
identified
section(s) of this
document for which I
cannot personally
verify its (their)
truth and accuracy,
I certify as the
company official
having supervisory
responsibility for
the persons who,
acting under my
direct instructions,
made the
verification that
this information is
true, accurate and
complete.
If any of this
information is
determined by EPA in
its sole discretion
to be false,
inaccurate or
incomplete, and upon
conveyance of this
fact to the company,
I recognize and
agree that this
exclusion of waste
will be void as if
it never had effect
or to the extent
directed by EPA and
that the company
will be liable for
any actions taken in
contravention of the
company's RCRA and
CERCLA obligations
premised upon the
company's reliance
on the void
exclusion.
(6) Re-Opener: (A)
If, anytime after
disposal of the
delisted waste, C-H
possesses or is
otherwise made aware
of any environmental
data (including but
not limited to
leachate data or
ground water
monitoring data) or
any other data
relevant to the
delisted waste
indicating that any
constituent
identified for the
delisting
verification testing
is at level higher
than the delisting
level allowed by the
Division Director in
granting the
petition, then the
facility must report
the data, in
writing, to the
Division Director
within 10 days of
first possessing or
being made aware of
that data.
(B) If the annual
testing of the waste
does not meet the
delisting
requirements in
paragraph (1), C-H
must report the
data, in writing, to
the Division
Director within 10
days of first
possessing or being
made aware of that
data.
(C) If C-H fails to
submit the
information
described in
paragraphs (5),
(6)(A) or (6)(B) or
if any other
information is
received from any
source, the Division
Director will make a
preliminary
determination as to
whether the reported
information requires
EPA action to
protect human health
and/or the
environment. Further
action may include
suspending, or
revoking the
exclusion, or other
appropriate response
necessary to protect
human health and the
environment.
[[Page 54780]]
(D) If the Division
Director determines
that the reported
information does
require action,
EPA's Division
Director will notify
the facility in
writing of the
actions the Division
Director believes
are necessary to
protect human health
and the environment.
The notice shall
include a statement
of the proposed
action and a
statement providing
the facility with an
opportunity to
present information
as to why the
proposed action by
EPA is not
necessary. The
facility shall have
10 days from the
date of the Division
Director's notice to
present such
information.
(E) Following the
receipt of
information from the
facility described
in paragraph (6)(D)
or (if no
information is
presented under
paragraph (6)(D))
the initial receipt
of information
described in
paragraphs (5),
(6)(A) or (6)(B),
the Division
Director will issue
a final written
determination
describing EPA's
actions that are
necessary to protect
human health and/or
the environment. Any
required action
described in the
Division Director's
determination shall
become effective
immediately, unless
the Division
Director provides
otherwise.
(7) Notification
Requirements: C-H
must do the
following before
transporting the
delisted waste.
Failure to provide
this notification
will result in a
violation of the
delisting petition
and a possible
revocation of the
decision.
(A) Provide a one-
time written
notification to any
state Regulatory
Agency to which or
through which it
will transport the
delisted waste
described above for
disposal, 60 days
before beginning
such activities.
(B) Update one-time
written
notification, if it
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. E8-21228 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P