[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36725-36735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17561]



[[Page 36725]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW-FRL-7008-1]


Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of 
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to grant a petition submitted by Texas 
Arai Manufacturing Facility (Texas Arai) to exclude (or delist) certain 
solid wastes generated by its Houston, Texas, facility from the lists 
of hazardous wastes.
    The Agency bases its proposed decision to grant the petition on an 
evaluation of waste-specific information provided by the petitioner. 
This proposed decision, if finalized, would conditionally exclude the 
petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations 
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
    The EPA is proposing to use the Delisting Risk Assessment Software 
(DRAS) in the evaluation of the delisting petition. Based on waste 
specific information provided by the petitioner, EPA is proposing to 
use the DRAS to evaluate the impact of the petitioned waste on human 
health and the environment.
    If finalized, we would conclude that Texas Arai's petitioned waste 
is nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria and that 
the wastewater treatment process Texas Arai uses will substantially 
reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from this 
waste. We would also conclude that its process minimizes short-term and 
long-term threats from the petitioned waste to human health and the 
environment.

DATES: We will accept comments until August 27, 2001. We will stamp 
comments received after the close of the comment period as ``late''. 
These late'' comments may not be considered in formulating a final 
decision. Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by July 30, 2001. 
The request must contain the information prescribed in Sec. 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Please send three copies of your comments. You should send 
two copies to William Gallagher, Delisting Section, Multimedia Planning 
and Permitting Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, 75202. A third copy should 
be sent to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), 
P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas, 78711-3087. Identify your comments at 
the top with this regulatory docket number:
``F-00-TXDEL-Texas Arai.''
    You should address requests for a hearing to the Director, Carl 
Edlund, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 
Texas 75202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deanna R. Lacy at (214) 665-6461.

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 Texas Arai manage the waste if it is delisted?
    D. When would EPA finalize the proposed Delisting?
    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 wastes did Texas Arai petition EPA to delist?
    B. Who is Texas Arai and what process does it use to generate 
the petition waste?
    C. How did Texas Arai sample and analyze the waste data in this 
petition?
    D. What were the results of Texas Arai's analysis?
    E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
    F. What did EPA conclude about Texas Arai's analysis?
    G. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
    H. What is EPA's final evaluation of this delisting petition?
IV. Next Steps
    A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?
    B. What happens if Texas Arai 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 EPA Proposing?

    The EPA is proposing:
    (1) To grant Texas Arai's petition to have its F006 wastewater 
treatment sludge excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a 
hazardous waste, subject to certain continued verification and 
monitoring conditions; and
    (2) To use a fate and transport model to evaluate the potential 
impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the environment. The 
Agency would use this model to predict the concentration of hazardous 
constituents released from the petitioned waste, once it is disposed.

B. Why Is EPA Proposing To Approve This Delisting?

    Texas Arai's petition requests a delisting for listed hazardous 
wastes. Texas Arai does not believe that the petitioned waste meets the 
criteria for which EPA listed it. Texas Arai 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). 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, EPA evaluated the 
petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in 
Secs. 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, the EPA agrees 
with the petitioner that the waste is nonhazardous with respect to the 
original listing criteria. (If the EPA had found, based on this review, 
that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for which the 
waste was originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny the 
petition.) The EPA evaluated the waste with respect to other factors or 
criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that 
such additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. The EPA 
considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the concentration of the 
constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to 
bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from 
the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned 
waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste variability. The 
EPA believes that the petitioned waste does not meet these criteria. 
EPA's proposed decision to delist waste from

[[Page 36726]]

Texas Arai's facility is based on the information submitted in support 
of this proposal, i.e., descriptions of the wastewater treatment 
system, and analytical data from the Houston facility.

C. How Will Texas Arai Manage the Waste if it Is Delisted?

    Texas Arai currently disposes of the wastewater treatment sludge by 
transporting it to a disposal facility, Phillips Services (formerly 
Eltex Chemical) in Houston. Then, according to Phillips Services, it is 
transported to Texas Ecologists located in Robstown, Texas, for 
stabilization and final disposal. If delisted, Texas Arai plans to 
manage the wastewater treatment sludge as a Class I nonhazardous 
industrial solid waste, and proposes to dispose of the sludge at an 
approved and permitted industrial waste landfill to be determined 
pending successful completion of the petition.

D. When Would EPA Finalize the Proposed Delisting?

    RCRA section 3001(f) specifically requires EPA to provide proposal 
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 proposed rule.
    RCRA section 3010(b)(1) at 42 U.S.C.A. 6930(b)(1), allows rules to 
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community 
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the 
case here, because this rule, if finalized, would reduce the existing 
requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes.
    The EPA believes that this exclusion should be effective 
immediately upon final publication because a six-month deadline is not 
necessary to achieve the purpose of Sec. 3010(b), and a later effective 
date would impose unnecessary hardship and expense on this petitioner. 
These reasons also provide good cause for making this rule effective 
immediately, upon final publication, under the Administrative Procedure 
Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

E. How Would This Action Affect the States?

    Because EPA is issuing this exclusion under the Federal RCRA 
delisting program, only States subject to Federal RCRA delisting 
provisions would be affected. This would exclude two categories of 
States: States having a dual system that includes Federal RCRA 
requirements and their own requirements, and States which have received 
authorization from EPA to make their own delisting decisions.
    Here are the details: We allow states to impose their own non-RCRA 
regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's under 
Sec. 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.A. 6929. These more stringent requirements 
may include a provision that prohibits a Federally issued exclusion 
from taking effect in the State. Because a dual system (that is, both 
Federal (RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a 
petitioner's waste, we urge petitioners to contact the State regulatory 
authority to establish the status of their wastes under the State law.
    The EPA has also authorized some States (for example, Louisiana, 
Georgia, Illinois) to administer a RCRA delisting program in place of 
the Federal program, that is, to make State delisting decisions. 
Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized States 
unless that State makes the rule part of its authorized program. If 
Texas Arai transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in 
any State with delisting authorization, Texas Arai must obtain 
delisting authorization from that State before they can manage the 
waste as nonhazardous in that State.

II. Background

A. What Is the History of the Delisting Program?

    The EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from 
nonspecific and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its 
final and interim final regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA. 
The EPA has amended this list several times and published it in 
Secs. 261.31 and 261.32.
    We list these wastes as hazardous because: (1) They typically and 
frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous 
wastes identified in Subpart C of Part 261 (that is, ignitability, 
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or (2) they meet the criteria 
for listing contained in Secs. 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3).
    Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw 
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste 
described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a specific waste 
from an individual facility meeting the listing description may not be 
hazardous.
    For this reason, Secs. 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion 
procedure, called delisting, which allows persons to prove that EPA 
should not regulate a specific waste from a particular generating 
facility as a hazardous waste.

B. What Is a Delisting Petition, and What Does it Require of a 
Petitioner?

    A delisting petition is a request from a facility to EPA or an 
authorized State to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes. 
The facility petitions the Agency because it does not consider the 
wastes hazardous under RCRA regulations.
    In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that wastes 
generated at a particular facility do not meet any of the criteria for 
which a waste was listed wastes. The criteria for which EPA lists a 
waste are in Part 261 further explains and 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 wastes.)
    Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm whether their 
waste remains nonhazardous 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 Sec. 3001(f) 
of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background documents for the 
listed wastes, EPA must consider any factors (including additional 
constituents) other than those for which we listed the waste if a 
reasonable basis exists that these additional factors could cause the 
waste to be hazardous.
    The EPA must also consider as hazardous waste mixtures containing 
listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or 
disposing of listed hazardous waste. See Secs. 261.3(a)(2)(iii and iv) 
and (c)(2)(i), called the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules, 
respectively. These wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain 
hazardous wastes until excluded.
    The ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules are now final, after 
having been vacated, remanded, and reinstated. On December 6, 1991, the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the 
``mixture/derived from'' rules and remanded them to EPA on procedural 
grounds. See Shell Oil Co. v. EPA., 950 F.2d 741 (DC Cir. 1991). On

[[Page 36727]]

March 3, 1992, EPA reinstated the mixture and derived-from rules, and 
solicited comments on other ways to regulate waste mixtures and 
residues. See (57 FR 7628). These rules became final on October 30, 
1992. See (57 FR 49278). Consult these references for more information 
about mixtures and derived from wastes.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data

A. What Waste Did Texas Arai Petition EPA To Delist?

    On April 13, 2000, Texas Arai petitioned the EPA to exclude from 
the lists of hazardous waste contained in Secs. 261.31 and 261.32 a 
F006 wastewater treatment sludge generated from the treatment of 
process wastewater associated with metal plating and finishing 
operations. Specifically, in its petition, Texas Arai located in 
Houston, Texas, requested that EPA grant an exclusion for 186 cubic 
yards per year of wastewater treatment sludge resulting from its 
hazardous waste treatment process.

B. Who Is Texas Arai and What Process Do They Use To Generate the 
Petitioned Waste?

    Texas Arai is a manufacturing facility in Houston, TX which has 
been in operation since 1981 and began its generation of the petitioned 
waste in 1997. Texas Arai produces carbon steel couplings for the 
petroleum and petrochemical industry.
    The facility machines tubular carbon steel into threaded couplings 
which are then finished by chromium steel plating, followed by paint 
marking and packaging. The couplings are machined from raw carbon steel 
and alloy metals and are plated to American Petroleum Institute (API) 
specifications. Metal finishing and plating operations generate 
wastewater which is treated in an on-site wastewater treatment system 
prior to discharge. Hazardous wastes generated during facility 
operations include: wastewater treatment sludge, zinc phosphate 
solution, alkaline cleaning solution, spent solvents, and spent paint 
wastes. The petitioned waste has been disposed of as a hazardous waste 
at Texas Ecologists in Robstown, Texas. The waste code of the 
constituents of concern is EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006. The 
constituents of concern for F006 are cadmium, hexavalent chromium, 
nickel, and cyanide (complexed).

C. How Did Texas Arai Sample and Analyze the Waste Data in This 
Petition?

    Four grab samples were collected each week over a period of five 
weeks. The grab sample locations were selected using a random sampling 
strategy. Each of the four grab samples were combined into a single 
composite sample. Samples were collected from two trays underlying the 
filter press. Sampling was conducted by Dames & Moore consulting firm.
    To support its petition, Texas Arai submitted:
    (1) Descriptions of its wastewater treatment system associated with 
petitioned wastes;
    (2) Results of the total constituent list for 40 CFR Part 264 
Appendix IX volatiles, semivolatiles, and metals except pesticides, 
herbicides, and PCBs;
    (3) Results of the constituent list for Appendix IX on Toxicity 
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract for volatiles, 
semivolatiles, and metals;
    (4) Results for total sulfide,
    (5) results for total cyanide;
    (6) Results for pH;
    (7) Results of the metals; amd
    (9) Results from oil and grease.

D. What Were the Results of Texas Arai's Analyses?

    The EPA believes that the descriptions of the Texas Arai hazardous 
waste process and analytical characterization provide a reasonable 
basis to grant Texas Arai's petition for an exclusion of the wastewater 
treatment sludge. The EPA believes the data submitted in support of the 
petition show Texas Arai's process renders the wastewater treatment 
sludge nonhazardous. The EPA has reviewed the sampling procedures used 
by Texas Arai and has determined they satisfy EPA criteria for 
collecting representative samples of the variations in constituent 
concentrations in the wastewater treatment sludge. The data submitted 
in support of the petition show that constituents in Texas Arai's waste 
are presently below health-based levels used in the delisting decision-
making. The EPA believes that Texas Arai has successfully demonstrated 
that the wastewater treatment sludge is nonhazardous.

E. How Did EPA Evaluate the Risk of Delisting the Waste?

    For this delisting determination, EPA used such information 
gathered to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground water, 
surface water, air) for hazardous constituents present in the 
petitioned waste. The EPA determined that disposal in a Subtitle D 
landfill is the most reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for Texas 
Arai's petitioned waste. The EPA applied the Delisting Risk Assessment 
Software (DRAS) described in 65 FR 58015 (September 27, 2000) and 65 FR 
75637 (December 4, 2000) to predict the maximum allowable 
concentrations of hazardous constituents that may release from the 
petitioned waste after disposal and determined the potential impact of 
the disposal of Texas Arai's petitioned waste on human health and the 
environment. In assessing potential risks to ground water, 
specifically, EPA used the maximum estimated waste volumes and the 
maximum reported extract concentrations as inputs to the DRAS program 
to estimate the constituent concentrations in the ground water at a 
hypothetical receptor well down gradient from the disposal site. Using 
the risk level (carcinogenic risk of 10-5 and non-cancer hazard index 
of 0.1), the DRAS program can back-calculate the acceptable receptor 
well concentrations (referred to as compliance-point concentrations) 
using standard risk assessment algorithms and Agency health-based 
numbers. Using the maximum compliance-point concentrations and the 
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.
    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 scenario 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.
    Similarly, the DRAS used 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). In 
the ground water analyses, the DRAS uses the established acceptable 
risk level, the health-based data and standard risk assessment and 
exposure algorithms to predict maximum compliance-point

[[Page 36728]]

concentrations of waste constituents at a hypothetical point of 
exposure. Using fate and transport equations, the DRAS uses the maximum 
compliance-point concentrations and back-calculates the maximum 
allowable waste constituent concentrations (or ``delisting levels''). 
In most cases, because a delisted waste is no longer subject to 
hazardous waste control, EPA is generally unable to predict, and does 
not presently control, how a petitioner will manage a waste after 
delisting. Therefore, EPA currently believes that it is inappropriate 
to consider extensive site-specific factors when applying the fate and 
transport model.
    The EPA also considers the applicability of ground water monitoring 
data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this case, Texas 
Arai does not dispose of waste onsite, therefore, no groundwater data 
is available.
    From the evaluation of Texas Arai's delisting petition, EPA 
developed a list of constituents for the verification testing 
conditions. Proposed maximum allowable leachable concentrations for 
these constituents were derived by back-calculating from the delisting 
health-based levels through the proposed fate and transport model for a 
landfill management scenario. These concentrations (i.e., ``delisting 
levels'') are part of the proposed verification testing conditions of 
the exclusion.
    The EPA believes that the descriptions of the Texas Arai, Inc., 
hazardous waste process and analytical characterization, in conjunction 
with the proposed testing requirements (as discussed later in this 
proposed exclusion) 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. Thus, EPA 
should grant Texas Arai's petition for a standard conditional exclusion 
of the wastewater treatment sludge.
    The EPA Region 6 Delisting Program guidance document states that 
the appropriate fate and effect model will be used to determine the 
effect the petitioned waste could have on human health if it is not 
managed as a hazardous waste. Specifically, the model considers the 
maximum estimated waste volume and the maximum reported leachate 
concentrations as inputs to estimate the constituent concentrations in 
the ground water at a hypothetical receptor well downgradient from the 
disposal site. The calculated receptor well concentrations (referred to 
as compliance-point concentrations) are then compared directly to the 
health-based levels used in delisting decision-making for hazardous 
constituents of concern. EPA Region 6 has selected the DRAS as the 
appropriate model for the delisting program. This subsection presents 
an evaluation of the potential for ground water contamination for the 
petitioned waste using the DRAS.
    The EPA considered the appropriateness of alternative waste 
management scenarios for Texas Arai's wastewater treatment sludge. The 
EPA decided, based on the information provided in the petition, that 
disposal of the wastewater treatment sludge in a municipal solid waste 
landfill is the most reasonable, worst-case scenario for the wastewater 
treatment sludge. Under a landfill disposal scenario, the major 
exposure route of concern for any hazardous constituents would be 
ingestion of contaminated ground water. The EPA, therefore, evaluated 
Texas Arai's petitioned waste using DRAS which predicts the potential 
for ground water contamination from waste placed in a landfill.
    For the evaluation of Texas Arai's petitioned waste, EPA used the 
DRAS to evaluate the mobility of the hazardous constituents detected in 
the extract of samples of Texas Arai's wastewater treatment sludge. 
Total analysis was also utilized for the wastewater treatment sludge. 
The maximum annual waste volume for Texas Arai is 186 cubic yards per 
year. The Dilution Attenuation Factors are currently calculated 
assuming an ongoing process generates waste for 20 years.
    Analytical data for the wastewater treatment sludge samples were 
used in the model. The data summaries for detected constituents are 
presented in Table I. The data in this table shows that the Maximum 
Total concentration in the waste is low and if leached, the waste would 
not pose a significant risk to the environment.
    The EPA's evaluation of the wastewater treatment sludge is based on 
the maximum reported Total and TCLP concentrations (See Table II). 
Based on the DRAS, the petitioned waste should be delisted because no 
constituents of concern exceed the delisting concentrations.

           Table I.--Maximum Total and TCLP Constituent Concentrations Wastewater Treatment Sludge \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Total constituent analyses
                                              (mg/kg) (SW-846, Method 8240,
                 Constituent                  8260, 8030, 8020, 8010, 8015,   TCLP leachate concentration (mg/1)
                                              8270, 8080, 8150, 6010, 7470,         (SW-846, method 1311)
                                                 7870, 9030, 9010, 9040)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aluminum....................................                        643      ND(0.1)
Arsenic.....................................                          3.55   ND(0.1)
Barium......................................                         37.4    ND(0.1)
Chromium....................................                         70.7    (0.1)
Chromium (VI)...............................                          0.1    N/A
Cobalt......................................                          3.63   0.021
Copper......................................                         33.6    ND(0.02)
Manganese...................................                        862      7
Nickel......................................                       2560      14.9
Tin.........................................                      10800      0.92
Zinc........................................                      19300      9.5
Ethylbenzene................................                          0.022  ND(0.005)
Xylenes.....................................                          0.073  ND(0.005)
Carbon Disulfide............................                          0.28   ND(0.005)
Methylene Chloride..........................                          0.017  ND(0.05)
Acetonitrile................................                          0.21   0.21
Allyl Chloride..............................                          0.018  0.018
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthlate..................                          4.4    ND(0.005)
Chloride....................................                        549      N/A

[[Page 36729]]

 
Sulfides....................................                      24200      N/A
pH..........................................                          8.94   N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 at the method detection limit specified in the table.
N/A Not Applicable.


 Table II.--Maximum Allowable Concentrations of Constituents in Leachate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
                                                             allowable
                       Constituent                           leachate
                                                           concentration
                                                              (mg/L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allyl Chloride..........................................           0.187
Acetonitrile............................................          21.3
Arsenic.................................................           0.163
Barium..................................................         100
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate............................           4.88
Carbon Disulfide........................................           2.94
Chromium................................................           5.0
Cobalt..................................................          39.3
Copper..................................................         130
Ethylbenzene............................................           3.33
Manganese...............................................          91.7
Methylene Chloride......................................           3.95
Nickel..................................................          49.3
Tin.....................................................         393.0
Xylenes.................................................         104.0
Zinc....................................................         489.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. What did EPA Conclude About Texas Arai's Analysis?

    The EPA concluded, after reviewing Texas Arai'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 or by 
products in Texas Arai's waste. In addition, on the basis of 
explanations and analytical data provided by Texas Arai pursuant to 
Sec. 260.22, the EPA concludes that the petitioned waste does not 
exhibit any of the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, or 
reactivity. See, Secs. 261.21, 261.22, and 261.23, respectively.

G. What Other Factors Did EPA Consider in Its Evaluation?

    During the evaluation of Texas Arai'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 Texas Arai's petitioned waste is unlikely. Therefore, 
no appreciable air releases are likely from Texas Arai's waste under 
any likely disposal conditions. The EPA evaluated the potential hazards 
resulting from the unlikely scenario of airborne exposure to hazardous 
constituents released from Texas Arai'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 Texas Arai's 
Wastewater treatment sludge. A description of EPA's assessment of the 
potential impact of Texas Arai's waste, regarding airborne dispersion 
of waste contaminants, is presented in the RCRA public docket for the 
proposed rule F-00-TXDEL-TXARAI.
    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 proposed rule due to the aggressive 
acidic medium used for extraction in the TCLP. The EPA believes that, 
in general, leachate derived from the waste is unlikely to directly 
enter a surface water body without first traveling through the 
saturated subsurface where dilution and attenuation of hazardous 
constituents will also occur. Leachable concentrations provide a direct 
measure of solubility of a toxic constituent in water and are 
indicative of the fraction of the constituent that may be mobilized in 
surface water as well as ground water.
    Based on the reasons discussed above, EPA believes that the 
contamination of surface water through runoff from the waste disposal 
area is very unlikely. Nevertheless, EPA evaluated the potential 
impacts on surface water if Texas Arai's waste were released from a 
municipal solid waste landfill through runoff and erosion. See the RCRA 
public docket for the proposed rule for further information on the 
potential surface water impacts from runoff and erosion. The estimated 
levels of the hazardous constituents of concern in surface water would 
be well below health-based levels for human health, as well as below 
EPA Chronic Water Quality Criteria for aquatic organisms (USEPA, OWRS, 
1987). The EPA, therefore, concluded that Texas Arai's wastewater 
treatment sludge is not a present or potential substantial hazard to 
human health and the environment via the surface water exposure 
pathway.

H. What Is EPA's Final Evaluation of This Delisting Petition?

    The descriptions of Texas Arai's hazardous waste process and 
analytical characterization, with the proposed verification testing 
requirements (as discussed later in this proposed exclusion) provide a 
reasonable basis for EPA to grant the exclusion. The data submitted in 
support of the petition show that constituents in the waste are below 
the maximum allowable leachable concentrations (see Table II). We 
believe Texas Arai has an effective treatment process that has rendered 
the waste as nonhazardous.
    Thus, EPA believes we should grant Texas Arai an exclusion for the 
wastewater treatment sludge. The EPA believes the data submitted in 
support of the petition show Texas Arai's process renders the 
wastewater treatment sludge nonhazardous.
    We have reviewed the sampling procedures used by Texas Arai and 
have determined they satisfy EPA criteria for collecting representative 
samples of variable constituent concentrations in the wastewater 
treatment sludge. The data submitted in support of the petition show 
that constituents in Texas Arai's waste are presently below the 
compliance point concentrations used in the delisting decision-making 
and do not pose a substantial hazard to the environment. The EPA 
believes that Texas Arai has successfully demonstrated that the 
wastewater treatment sludge is nonhazardous.

[[Page 36730]]

    The EPA therefore, proposes to grant a standard conditional 
exclusion to the Texas Arai, in Houston, Texas, for the wastewater 
treatment sludge described in its petition. The EPA's decision to 
conditionally exclude this waste is based on descriptions of the 
treatment activities associated with the petitioned waste and 
characterization of the wastewater treatment sludge.
    If we finalize the proposed rule, the Agency will no longer 
regulate the petitioned waste under parts 262 through 268 and the 
permitting standards of part 270.

IV. Next Steps

A. With What Conditions Must the Petitioner Comply?

    The petitioner, Texas Arai, 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 Texas Arai must 
test the leachate from the wastewater treatment sludge, below which 
these wastes would be considered nonhazardous.
    The EPA selected the set of inorganic and organic constituents 
specified in Paragraph (1) because of information in the petition. We 
compiled the list from the composition of the waste, descriptions of 
Texas Arai's treatment process, previous test data provided for the 
waste, and the respective health-based levels used in delisting 
decision-making.
    These delisting levels correspond to the allowable levels measured 
in the TCLP extract of the waste.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling
    The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that any wastewater 
treatment sludge which might contain hazardous levels of inorganic and 
organic constituents are managed and disposed of in accordance with 
Subtitle C of RCRA. If EPA determines that the data collected under 
this condition do not support the data provided in the petition, the 
exclusion will not cover the petitioned waste.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements
    Although the wastewater treatment sludge is considered delisted 
upon promulgation of this rule, EPA believes that conditional testing 
requirements are still warranted to ensure continued effectiveness of 
the treatment process. During the verification period, which is 
described in paragraph (3)(A)(i), Texas Arai must collect four samples 
quarterly for a period of one year. After successful completion of the 
initial verification period, which is approximately 12 months from the 
date of promulgation of the final rule, Texas Arai may begin annual 
sampling of the wastewater treatment sludge.
    (A) Testing. The EPA believes that the concentrations of the 
constituents of concern in the wastewater treatment sludge may vary 
over time. Therefore, EPA believes that quarterly sampling of this 
waste is adequate for Texas Arai to collect sufficient data to verify 
that the data provided for the wastewater treatment sludge is 
representative. Texas Arai may dispose of the sludge as a nonhazardous 
waste during the initial verification period if the waste meets the 
exclusion levels of Paragraph (1). Texas Arai would begin annual 
sampling on the first anniversary date of the final exclusion if the 
quarterly sampling is completed.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions
    Paragraph (4) would allow Texas Arai the flexibility of modifying 
its processes (for example, changes in equipment or changes in 
operating conditions) to improve its treatment process. However, Texas 
Arai must prove the effectiveness of the modified process and request 
approval from the EPA. Texas Arai 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 Texas Arai's facility is 
properly treating the waste, Texas Arai 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 
Texas Arai 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 186 
cubic yards of wastewater treatment sludge, generated annually at the 
Texas Arai facility after successful verification testing.
    We would require Texas Arai to file a new delisting petition under 
any of the following circumstances:
    (a) If it uses any new manufacturing or production process(es), or 
significantly change from the current process(es) described in its 
petition; or
    (b) If it makes any changes that could affect the composition or 
type of waste generated.
    Texas Arai must manage annual waste volumes greater than 186 cubic 
yards of wastewater treatment sludge as hazardous unless or until we 
grant a new exclusion.
    If this exclusion becomes final, Texas Arai's management of the 
wastes covered by this petition would be relieved from Subtitle C 
jurisdiction. Texas Arai must ensure that it delivers the waste to an 
off-site storage, treatment, or disposal facility that has a State 
permit, license, or is registered to manage municipal or industrial 
solid waste.
(6) Reopener Language
    The purpose of Paragraph 6 is to require Texas Arai 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. Texas Arai 
must also use this procedure, if the waste sample in the annual testing 
fails to meet the levels found in Paragraph 1. This provision will 
allow EPA to reevaluate the exclusion if a source provides new or 
additional information to the Agency. The EPA will evaluate the 
information on which we based the decision to see if it is still 
correct, or if circumstances have changed so that the information is no 
longer correct or would cause EPA to deny the petition if presented. 
This provision expressly requires Texas Arai to report differing site 
conditions or assumptions used in the petition in addition to failure 
to meet the annual testing conditions within 10 days of discovery. If 
EPA discovers such information itself or from a third party, it can act 
on it as appropriate. The language being proposed is similar to those 
provisions found in RCRA regulations governing no-migration petitions 
at Sec. 268.6.
    The EPA believes that we have the authority under RCRA and the 
Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et seq., to reopen a 
delisting decision. We may reopen a delisting decision when we receive 
new information that calls into question the assumptions underlying the 
delisting.
    The Agency believes a clear statement of its authority in 
delistings is merited in light of Agency experience. See Reynolds 
Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 (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 Agency to repeal the delisting. If an immediate 
threat to human health and the environment presents itself, EPA will 
continue to address these situations

[[Page 36731]]

case by case. Where necessary, 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, EPA is 
requiring that Texas Arai provide a one-time notification to any State 
regulatory agency through which or to which the delisted waste is being 
carried. Texas Arai must provide this notification within 60 days of 
commencing this activity.

B. What Happens if Texas Arai Violates the Terms and Conditions?

    If Texas Arai violates the terms and conditions established in the 
exclusion, the Agency will start procedures to withdraw the exclusion. 
Where there is an immediate threat to human health and the environment, 
the Agency will continue to evaluate the need for enforcement 
activities on a case-by-case basis. The Agency expects Texas Arai to 
conduct the appropriate waste analysis and comply with the criteria 
explained above in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the exclusion.

VI. Public Comments

A. How Can I as an Interested Party Submit Comments?

    The EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision. 
Please send three copies of your comments. Send two copies to William 
Gallagher, Delisting Section, Multimedia Planning and Permitting 
Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 6, 1445 
Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. Send a third copy to the Texas 
Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin, 
Texas 78753. Identify your comments at the top with this regulatory 
docket number: ``F-00-TXDEL-Texas Arai.''
    You should submit requests for a hearing to Carl Edlund, Director, 
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD), Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202.

B. How May I Review the Docket or Obtain Copies of the Proposed 
Exclusion?

    You may review the RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule at 
the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, Texas 75202. It is available for viewing in the EPA Freedom of 
Information Act Review Room from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for 
appointments. The public may copy material from any regulatory docket 
at no cost for the first 100 pages, and at fifteen cents per page for 
additional copies.

VI. Regulatory Impact

    Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of 
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory 
actions.
    The proposal to grant an exclusion is not significant, since its 
effect, if promulgated, would be to reduce the overall costs and 
economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. This 
reduction would be achieved by excluding waste generated at a specific 
facility from EPA's lists of hazardous wastes, thus enabling a facility 
to manage its waste as nonhazardous.
    Because there is no additional impact from the 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 of rulemaking for any proposed 
or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a 
regulatory flexibility analysis which describes the impact of the rule 
on small entities (that is, small businesses, small organizations, and 
small governmental jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis 
is required, however, if the Administrator or delegated representative 
certifies that the rule will not have any impact on small entities.
    This rule, if promulgated, will not have an adverse economic impact 
on small entities since its effect would be to reduce the overall costs 
of EPA's hazardous waste regulations and would be limited to one 
facility. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this proposed regulation, 
if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. This regulation, therefore, does 
not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Information collection and record-keeping requirements associated 
with this proposed rule have been approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1980 (Public Law 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned 
OMB Control Number 2050-0053.

IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995, 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement for rules with Federal 
mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local, and tribal 
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million 
or more in any one year.
    When such a statement is required for EPA rules, under section 205 
of the UMRA, EPA must identify and consider alternatives, including the 
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The EPA must select that 
alternative, unless the Administrator explains in the final rule why it 
was not selected or it is inconsistent with law.
    Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, it must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small 
government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially 
affected small governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in 
the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them 
on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate for regulatory 
purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon state, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector.
    The EPA finds that the delisting decision is deregulatory in nature 
and does not impose any enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal 
governments or the private sector. In addition, the proposed delisting 
decision does not establish any regulatory requirements for small 
governments and so does not require a small government agency plan 
under UMRA section 203.

X. Executive Order 13045

    The Executive Order 13045 is entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997). This order applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) is 
economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and 
(2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets

[[Page 36732]]

both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This 
proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this is 
not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by 
Executive Order 12866.

XI. Executive Order 13084

    Because this action does not involve any requirements that affect 
Indian Tribes, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 
13084 do not apply.
    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects 
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments.
    If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office 
Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the 
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation.
    In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected and other representatives of 
Indian tribal governments ``to 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 Agency is directed to use voluntary consensus 
standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices, 
etc.) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. 
Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus 
standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires that Agency to provide 
Congress, through the OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using 
such standards.
    This rule does not establish any new technical standards and thus, 
the Agency has no need to consider the use of voluntary consensus 
standards in developing this final rule.

XIII. Executive Order 13132 Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that impose substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law 
unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the 
process of developing the proposed regulation.
    This action does not have federalism implication. It will not have 
a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the 
national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132, because it affects only one facility.

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental Protection, Hazardous Waste, Recycling, Reporting and 
Recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f)

    Dated: June 15, 2001.
Carl E. Edlund,
Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

    1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.

    2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of part 261 it is proposed to add the 
following waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as 
follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261--Waste Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and 
260.22

                               Table 1.--Waste Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Facility                         Address                           Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
Texas Arai Chemical Company........  Houston, Texas.............  Wastewater treatment sludge EPA Hazardous
                                                                   Waste No. F006 generated at a maximum annual
                                                                   rate of 186 cubic yards per calendar year
                                                                   after (publication date of the final rule)
                                                                   and disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill.
                                                                  Texas Arai must implement a testing program
                                                                   that meets the following conditions for the
                                                                   exclusion to be valid:
                                                                  (1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations for
                                                                   the following constituents must not exceed
                                                                   the following levels (mg/l). The wastewater
                                                                   treatment sludge constituents must be
                                                                   measured in the waste leachate by the method
                                                                   specified in 40 CFR 261.24.

[[Page 36733]]

 
                                                                  (A) Wastewater treatment sludge: (i) Inorganic
                                                                   Constituents: Arsenic--0.163; Barium--100;
                                                                   Chromium--5.0; Cobalt--39.3; Copper--130;
                                                                   Manganese--91.7; Nickel--49.3; Tin--393.0 ;
                                                                   Zinc--489.0.
                                                                  (ii) Organic Constituents: Acetonitrile--21.3;
                                                                   Allyl Chloride--0.00435; Carbon Disulfide--
                                                                   2.94; bis(2-ethylhexylphthalate--4.88;
                                                                   Ethylbenzene--3.33; Methylene Chloride--3.95;
                                                                   Xylenes--104.0.
                                                                  (2) Verification Testing Requirements:
                                                                  Texas Arai must perform sample collection and
                                                                   analyses, including quality control
                                                                   procedures, according to SW-846
                                                                   methodologies.
                                                                  (A) Required Testing: (i) Texas Arai must
                                                                   collect and analyze at least four composite
                                                                   samples of the wastewater treatment sludge
                                                                   quarterly for a period of one year. The
                                                                   samples must be analyzed for constituents
                                                                   listed in Paragraph 1. (ii) After paragraph
                                                                   (3)(A)(i) has been completed, Texas Arai must
                                                                   collect and analyze at least one composite
                                                                   sample of the wastewater treatment sludge
                                                                   annually.
                                                                  (3) Changes in Operating Conditions:
                                                                  If Texas Arai significantly changes the
                                                                   process which generate(s) the waste(s) and
                                                                   which may or could affect the composition or
                                                                   type waste(s) generated as established under
                                                                   Paragraph(1) (by illustration, but not
                                                                   limitation, change in equipment or operating
                                                                   conditions of the treatment process), Texas
                                                                   Arai must notify the EPA in writing and may
                                                                   no longer manage the waste generated from the
                                                                   new process as nonhazardous until the waste
                                                                   meet the delisting levels set in Paragraph
                                                                   (1) and it has received written approval to
                                                                   do so from EPA.
                                                                  (4) Data Submittals:
                                                                  Texas Arai must submit or maintain, as
                                                                   applicable, the information described below.
                                                                   If Texas Arai 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. Texas
                                                                   Arai must:
                                                                  (A) Submit the data obtained through Paragraph
                                                                   3 to Mr. William Gallagher, Chief, Region 6
                                                                   Delisting Program, EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue,
                                                                   Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, Mail Code (6PD-O)
                                                                   within the time specified.
                                                                  (B) Compile records of operating conditions
                                                                   and analytical data from Paragraph (3),
                                                                   summarized, and maintained on-site for a
                                                                   minimum of five years.
                                                                  (C) Furnish these records and data when EPA or
                                                                   the State of Texas request them for
                                                                   inspection.
                                                                  (D) Send along with all data a signed copy of
                                                                   the following certification statement, to
                                                                   attest to the truth and accuracy of the data
                                                                   submitted:
                                                                  ``Under civil and criminal penalty of law for
                                                                   the making or submission of false or
                                                                   fraudulent statements or representations
                                                                   (pursuant to the applicable provisions of the
                                                                   Federal Code, which include, but may not be
                                                                   limited to, 18 U.S.C. Sec.  1001 and 42
                                                                   U.S.C. Sec.  6928), I certify that the
                                                                   information contained in or accompanying this
                                                                   document is true, accurate, and complete.''
                                                                  As to the (those) identified section(s) of
                                                                   this document for which I cannot personally
                                                                   verify its (their) truth and accuracy, I
                                                                   certify as the company official having
                                                                   supervisory responsibility for the persons
                                                                   who, acting under my direct instructions,
                                                                   made the verification that this information
                                                                   is true, accurate, and complete.
                                                                  If any of this information is determined by
                                                                   EPA in its sole discretion to be false,
                                                                   inaccurate or incomplete, and upon conveyance
                                                                   of this fact to the company, I recognize and
                                                                   agree that this exclusion of waste will be
                                                                   void as if it never had effect or to the
                                                                   extent directed by EPA and that the company
                                                                   will be liable for any actions taken in
                                                                   contravention of the company's RCRA and
                                                                   CERCLA obligations premised upon the
                                                                   company's reliance on the void exclusion.''

[[Page 36734]]

 
                                                                  (5) Reopener Language
                                                                  (A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted
                                                                   waste, Texas Arai 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
                                                                   a level higher than the delisting level
                                                                   allowed by the Regional Administrator or his
                                                                   delegate in granting the petition, then the
                                                                   facility must report the data, in writing, to
                                                                   the Regional Administrator or his delegate
                                                                   within 10 days of first possessing or being
                                                                   made aware of that data.
                                                                  (B) If the annual testing of the waste does
                                                                   not meet the delisting requirements in
                                                                   Paragraph 1, Texas Arai 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 Texas Arai fails to submit the
                                                                   information described in paragraphs (5),
                                                                   (6)(A) or (6)(B) or if any other information
                                                                   is received from any source, the Regional
                                                                   Administrator or his delegate will make a
                                                                   preliminary determination as to whether the
                                                                   reported information requires Agency action
                                                                   to protect human health or the environment.
                                                                   Further action may include suspending, or
                                                                   revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate
                                                                   response necessary to protect human health
                                                                   and the environment.
                                                                  (D) If the Regional Administrator or his
                                                                   delegate determines that the reported
                                                                   information does require Agency action, the
                                                                   Regional Administrator or his delegate will
                                                                   notify the facility, in writing, of the
                                                                   actions the Regional Administrator or his
                                                                   delegate believes are necessary to protect
                                                                   human health and the environment. The
                                                                   proposal shall include a statement of the
                                                                   proposed action and a statement providing the
                                                                   facility with an opportunity to present
                                                                   information as to why the proposed Agency
                                                                   action is not necessary. The facility shall
                                                                   have 10 days from the date of the Regional
                                                                   Administrator or his delegate's action to
                                                                   present such information.
                                                                  (E) Following the receipt of information from
                                                                   the facility described in paragraph (6)(C) or
                                                                   (if no information is presented under
                                                                   paragraph (6)(C) the initial receipt of
                                                                   information described in paragraphs (5),
                                                                   (6)(A) or (6)(B)), the Regional Administrator
                                                                   or his delegate will issue a final written
                                                                   determination describing the Agency actions
                                                                   that are necessary to protect human health or
                                                                   the environment. Any required action
                                                                   described in the Regional Administrator or
                                                                   his delegate's determination shall become
                                                                   effective immediately, unless the Regional
                                                                   Administrator or his delegate provides
                                                                   otherwise.
                                                                  (6) Notification Requirements:
                                                                  Texas Arai must do the following before
                                                                   transporting the delisted waste off-site:
                                                                   Failure to provide this notification will
                                                                   result in a violation of the delisting
                                                                   petition and a possible revocation of the
                                                                   exclusion.
                                                                  (A) Provide a one-time written notification to
                                                                   any State Regulatory Agency to which or
                                                                   through which they will transport the
                                                                   delisted waste described above for disposal,
                                                                   60 days before beginning such activities.
                                                                  (B) Update the one-time written notification
                                                                   if they ship the delisted waste to a
                                                                   different disposal facility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 36735]]

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-17561 Filed 7-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P