[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 134 (Friday, July 12, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46139-46148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-17458]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW-FRL-7245-1]


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 use the Delisting Risk Assessment 
Software (DRAS) in the evaluation of a 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.
    The EPA is also proposing to grant a petition submitted by Tokusen 
USA, Inc. (Tokusen) to exclude (or delist) a certain solid waste 
generated by its Conway, Arkansas, 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 exclude the petitioned 
waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
    If finalized, we would conclude that Tokusen's petitioned waste is 
nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria and that the 
dewatered sludge generated from the on-site Wastewater Treatment Plant 
(WWTP) and not from a manufacturing process will substantially reduce 
the likelihood of migration of constituents from this waste. We would 
also conclude that their 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 26, 2002. 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 29, 2002. The 
request must contain the information prescribed in 40 CFR 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Please send three copies of your comments. You should send 
two copies to the Section Chief of the Delisting Section, Multimedia 
Planning and Permitting Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. You should send a third 
copy to Ali Dorobati, Hazardous Waste Division, Active Sites Branch, 
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), P.O. Box 8913, 
Little Rock, Arkansas, 72219-8913. Identify your comments at the top 
with this regulatory docket number: ``F-02-ARDEL-TOKUSEN.''
    You should address requests for a hearing to the Director, Carl 
Edlund, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry K. Landry (214) 665-8134.

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 Tokusen manage the waste if it is delisted?
    D. When would the EPA finalize the delisting?
    E. How would this action affect the 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 Tokusen petition EPA to delist?
    B. What is Tokusen and how did it generate this waste?
    C. What information and analyses did Tokusen submit to support 
its petition?
    D. What were the results of Tokusen's analysis?
    E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
    F. What other factors did EPA consider?
    G. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
IV. Next Steps
    A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?
    B. What happens if Tokusen violates the terms and conditions?
V. Public Comments
    A. How can 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 Tokusen's petition to have its dewatered WWTP sludge 
excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a hazardous waste; 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?

    Tokusen's petition requests a delisting for an F006 listed 
hazardous waste. Tokusen does not believe that the petitioned waste 
meets the criteria for which EPA listed it. Tokusen also believes no 
additional constituents or factors could cause the waste to be 
hazardous. The EPA's review of this

[[Page 46140]]

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 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 the listing 
criteria and thus should not be a listed waste. The EPA's proposed 
decision to delist waste from Tokusen's facility is based on the 
information submitted in support of this rule, including descriptions 
of the wastes and analytical data from the Conway, Arkansas facility.

C. How Will Tokusen Manage the Waste if It Is Delisted?

    Tokusen currently sends the petitioned waste to Envirite 
Corporation, a hazardous landfill in Harvey, Illinois. If the delisting 
exclusion is finalized, Tokusen intends to dispose of the petitioned 
waste, dewatered WWTP sludge, in a solid waste landfill in Little Rock, 
Arkansas called Waste Management Industrial Landfill.

D. When Would the EPA Finalize the Delisting?

    RCRA section 3001(f) specifically requires EPA to provide 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 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 section 3010(b), and a later 
effective date would impose unnecessary hardship and expense on this 
petitioner. These reasons also provide good cause for making this rule 
effective immediately, upon final publication, under the Administrative 
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

E. How Would This Action Affect the States?

    Because 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 who 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 
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, 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 
Tokusen transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any 
State with delisting authorization, Tokusen must obtain delisting 
authorization from that State before they can manage the waste as 
nonhazardous in the 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 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 nonhazardous based on the

[[Page 46141]]

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 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. See 66 FR 27266 (May 16, 2001).

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

A. What Waste Did Tokusen Petition EPA To Delist?

    On October 24, 2001, Tokusen petitioned the EPA to exclude from the 
lists of hazardous waste contained in Secs. 261.31 and 261.32, a 
dewatered WWTP sludge generated from the facility located in Conway, 
Arkansas. The waste falls under the classification of listed waste 
because of the ``derived-from'' rule in Sec. 261.3. Specifically, in 
its petition, Tokusen requested that EPA grant an exclusion for 670 
cubic yards of dewatered sludge resulting from its hazardous waste 
treatment process. The resulting waste is listed, in accordance with 
the ``derived-from'' rule.

B. What Is Tokusen, and How Did it Generate This Waste?

    The Tokusen facility is located in an industrial/commercial setting 
in the southern portion of the City of Conway, Faulkner County, 
Arkansas. The 47.25 acre Tokusen property contains a production 
facility measuring approximately 400,000 square feet in size. Plant 
process operations at the Tokusen facility are in support of a singular 
finished product, namely high carbon steel tire cord for use in radial 
tire manufacturing. The facility operates 24 hours per day, 7 days per 
week, 365 days per year with the exception of periodic planned 
shutdowns for routine maintenance.
    The Tokusen facility manufactures steel cord used to produce steel 
belted radial tires. The steel cord is produced from steel rod which 
has been reduced in size and electroplated with copper and zinc to 
produce a brass coating. The plant generates four major types of waste 
and they are process wastewater, F006 dewatered WWTP sludge, sanitary 
sewage and other solid waste (rod wrappers, lube sludge, soap dust and 
other solids). The petitioned waste is generated from the wastewater 
treatment plant and not from the manufacturing process. The 
electroplating units which contribute wastewater to the WWTP are the 
copper and zinc electroplating baths. The waste code of the petitioned 
waste is EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006. The constituents of concern for 
F006 are cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and cyanide (complexed).

C. What Information and Analyses Did Tokusen Submit to Support its 
Petition?

    To support its petition, Tokusen submitted:
    (1) Historical information on past waste generation and management 
practices;
    (2) Results of the total constituent list for 40 CFR Part 264 
Appendix IX volatiles, semivolatiles, metals, pesticides, herbicides, 
dioxins and PCBs;
    (3) Results of the constituent list for Appendix IX on Toxicity 
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract for volatiles, 
semivolatiles, and metals;
    (4) Analytical constituents of concern for F006;
    (5) Results from total oil and grease analyses;
    (6) Multiple pH testing for the petitioned waste.

D. What Were the Results of Tokusen's Analyses?

    The EPA believes that the descriptions of the Tokusen analytical 
characterization provide a reasonable basis to grant Tokusen's petition 
for an exclusion of the dewatered WWTP sludge. The EPA believes the 
data submitted in support of the petition show the dewatered WWTP 
sludge is non-hazardous. Analytical data for the dewatered WWTP sludge 
samples were used in the DRAS. The data summaries for detected 
constituents are presented in Table I. The EPA has reviewed the 
sampling procedures used by Tokusen and has determined they satisfy EPA 
criteria for collecting representative samples of the variations in 
constituent concentrations in the dewatered WWTP sludge. The data 
submitted in support of the petition show that constituents in 
Tokusen's waste are presently below health-based levels used in the 
delisting decision-making. The EPA believes that Tokusen has 
successfully demonstrated that the dewatered WWTP sludge is non-
hazardous.

    Table I.--Maximum Total and TCLP Constituent Concentrations of the
                        Dewatered WWTP Sludge \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Total         TCLP leachate
             Constituent                 constituent      Concentration
                                      analyses (mg/kg)       (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony............................              1.27           *0.5
Arsenic.............................              3.32           *0.5
Barium..............................                49           *0.1
Chromium............................                13           *0.05
Cobalt..............................              2.21           *0.05
Copper..............................             3,190            0.09
Lead................................             5,130            0.402
Nickel..............................              38.2            1.93
Selenium............................              4.08            0.0734
Silver..............................             0.174            0.0283
Vanadium............................              5.67            0.0134
Zinc................................            21,800            8.94
1,4 Dichlorobenzene.................           * 0.020            0.019

[[Page 46142]]

 
Hexachlorobutadiene.................           * 0.330            0.120
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
* Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the noted detection
  limit.

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 
Tokusen's petitioned waste. 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 be released from the 
petitioned waste after disposal and determined the potential impact of 
the disposal of Tokusen's petitioned waste on human health and the 
environment. A copy of this software can be found on the world wide web 
at www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/rcra_c/pd-o/dras.htm. 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 the EPA Composite Model for 
Leachate Migration with Transformation Products (EPACMTP) fate and 
transport modeling factors, the DRAS further back-calculates the 
maximum permissible waste constituent concentrations not expected to 
exceed the compliance-point concentrations in groundwater.
    The EPA believes that the EPACMTP fate and transport model 
represents a reasonable worst-case scenario for possible ground water 
contamination resulting from disposal of the petitioned waste in a 
landfill, and that a reasonable worst-case scenario is appropriate when 
evaluating whether a waste should be relieved of the protective 
management constraints of RCRA Subtitle C. The use of some reasonable 
worst-case scenarios resulted in conservative values for the 
compliance-point concentrations and ensures that the waste, once 
removed from hazardous waste regulation, will not pose a significant 
threat to human health or the environment.
    The DRAS also uses the maximum estimated waste volumes and the 
maximum reported total concentrations to predict possible risks 
associated with releases of waste constituents through surface pathways 
(e.g., volatilization or wind-blown particulate from the landfill). As 
in the above ground water analyses, the DRAS uses the risk level, the 
health-based data and standard risk assessment and exposure algorithms 
to predict maximum compliance-point concentrations of waste 
constituents at a hypothetical point of exposure. Using fate and 
transport equations, the DRAS uses the maximum compliance-point 
concentrations and back-calculates the maximum allowable waste 
constituent concentrations (or ``delisting levels'').
    In most cases, because a delisted waste is no longer subject to 
hazardous waste control, 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 does control the type of unit where the waste 
is disposed. The waste must be disposed in the type of unit the fate 
and transport model evaluates.
    The EPA also considers the applicability of ground water monitoring 
data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this case, 
Tokusen has never directly disposed of this material in a solid waste 
landfill, so no representative data exists. Therefore, EPA has 
determined that it would be unnecessary to request ground water 
monitoring data.
    The EPA believes that the descriptions of Tokusen's hazardous waste 
process and analytical characterization provide a reasonable basis to 
conclude that the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents 
from the petitioned waste will be substantially reduced so that short-
term and long-term threats to human health and the environment are 
minimized.
    The DRAS results which calculate the maximum allowable 
concentration of chemical constituents in the waste are presented in 
Table II. Based on the comparison of the DRAS results and maximum TCLP 
concentrations found in Table I, the petitioned waste should be 
delisted because no constituents of concern which tested, are likely to 
be present or formed as reaction products or by products in Tokusen's 
waste. In addition, on the basis of explanations and analytical data 
provided by Tokusen, 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.

F. What Other Factors Did EPA Consider?

    During the evaluation of Tokusen'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 Tokusen's petitioned waste is unlikely. Therefore, no 
appreciable air releases are likely from Tokusen'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 Tokusen'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 Tokusen's 
dewatered WWTP sludge. A description of EPA's assessment of the 
potential impact of Tokusen's waste, regarding airborne dispersion of 
waste contaminants, is presented in the RCRA

[[Page 46143]]

public docket for this proposed rule, F-02-ARDEL-Tokusen.
    The EPA also considered the potential impact of the petitioned 
waste via a surface water route. The EPA believes that containment 
structures at municipal solid waste landfills can effectively control 
surface water runoff, as the Subtitle D regulations (See 56 FR 50978, 
October 9, 1991) prohibit pollutant discharges into surface waters. 
Furthermore, the concentrations of any hazardous constituents dissolved 
in the runoff will tend to be lower than the levels in the TCLP 
leachate analyses reported in this notice due to the aggressive acidic 
medium used for extraction in the TCLP. The EPA believes that, in 
general, leachate derived from the waste is unlikely to directly enter 
a surface water body without first traveling through the saturated 
subsurface where dilution and attenuation of hazardous constituents 
will also occur. Leachable concentrations provide a direct measure of 
solubility of a toxic constituent in water and are indicative of the 
fraction of the constituent that may be mobilized in surface water as 
well as ground water.
    Based on the reasons discussed above, 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 Tokusen's waste were released from a 
municipal solid waste landfill through runoff and erosion. See the RCRA 
public docket for this proposed rule for further information on the 
potential surface water impacts from runoff and erosion. The estimated 
levels of the hazardous constituents of concern in surface water would 
be well below health-based levels for human health, as well as below 
EPA Chronic Water Quality Criteria for aquatic organisms (USEPA, OWRS, 
1987). The EPA, therefore, concluded that Tokusen's dewatered WWTP 
sludge is not a present or potential substantial hazard to human health 
and the environment via the surface water exposure pathway.

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

    The descriptions of Tokusen's hazardous waste process and 
analytical characterization, with the proposed verification testing 
requirements (as discussed later in this notice), 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 Tokusen's 
process will substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of 
hazardous constituents from the petitioned waste. Tokusen's process 
also minimizes short-term and long-term threats from the petitioned 
waste to human health and the environment.
    Thus, EPA believes we should grant Tokusen an exclusion for the 
dewatered WWTP sludge. The EPA believes the data submitted in support 
of the petition show Tokusen's process can render the dewatered WWTP 
sludge non-hazardous.
    We have reviewed the sampling procedures used by Tokusen and have 
determined they satisfy EPA criteria for collecting representative 
samples of variable constituent concentrations in the dewatered WWTP 
sludge. The data submitted in support of the petition show that 
constituents in Tokusen's waste are presently below the compliance 
point concentrations used in the delisting decision-making and would 
not pose a substantial hazard to the environment. The EPA believes that 
Tokusen has successfully demonstrated that the dewatered WWTP sludge is 
non-hazardous.
    The EPA therefore, proposes to grant an exclusion to Tokusen, in 
Conway, Arkansas, for the dewatered WWTP sludge described in its 
petition. The EPA's decision to exclude this waste is based on 
descriptions of the treatment activities associated with the petitioned 
waste and characterization of the dewatered WWTP 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, Tokusen, 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 that Tokusen must test the leachate from the dewatered 
WWTP sludge, below which these wastes would be considered non-
hazardous.
    The EPA selected the set of inorganic and organic constituents 
specified in Paragraph (1) of 40 CFR part 261, appendix IX, Table 1, 
based on information in the petition. We compiled the inorganic and 
organic constituents list from the composition of the waste, 
descriptions of Tokusen'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 Tokusen manages and disposes of any dewatered WWTP sludge 
that might contain hazardous levels of inorganic and organic 
constituents according to Subtitle C of RCRA. Holding the dewatered 
WWTP sludge until characterization is complete 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 when we sign it, but the disposal cannot 
begin until the verification sampling is completed.
    (3) Verification Testing Requirements: (A) Initial Verification 
Testing: If the EPA determines that the data from the initial 
verification period shows the treatment process is effective, Tokusen 
may request that EPA allow it to conduct verification testing 
quarterly. If EPA approves this request in writing, then Tokusen may 
begin verification testing quarterly.
    The EPA believes that an initial period of 60 days is adequate for 
a facility to collect sufficient data to verify that the data provided 
for the dewatered WWTP sludge, in the 2001 petition, is representative.
    If we determine 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 
period demonstrate that the treatment process is effective, Tokusen may 
request quarterly testing. EPA will notify Tokusen, in writing, if and 
when they may replace the testing conditions in paragraph(3)(A)with the 
testing conditions in (3)(B).
    (B) Subsequent Verification Testing: The EPA believes that the 
concentrations of the constituents of concern in the dewatered WWTP 
sludge may vary over time. As a result, to ensure that Tokusen's 
treatment process can effectively handle any variation in constituent 
concentrations in the waste, we are proposing a subsequent verification 
testing condition.
    The proposed subsequent testing would verify that Tokusen operates 
the manufacturing of steel cord as it did during the initial 
verification testing. It would also verify that the dewatered WWTP 
sludge do not exhibit

[[Page 46144]]

unacceptable levels of toxic constituents.
    The EPA is proposing to require Tokusen to analyze representative 
samples of the dewatered WWTP sludge quarterly during the first year of 
waste generation. Tokusen would begin quarterly sampling on the 
anniversary date of the final exclusion as described in paragraph 
(3)(B).
    (C) Termination of Organic Testing: The EPA is proposing to end the 
subsequent testing conditions for organics during the first year in 
paragraph (1)(C) after Tokusen has demonstrated that the waste 
consistently meets the delisting levels. Annual testing requires the 
full list of components in paragraph 1.
    If the annual testing of the waste does not meet the delisting 
requirements in paragraph 1, Tokusen must notify the Agency according 
to the requirements in paragraph 6. We will take the appropriate 
actions necessary to protect human health and the environment. The 
facility must provide sampling results that support the rationale that 
the delisting exclusion should not be withdrawn.
    To confirm that the characteristics of the waste do not change 
significantly over time, Tokusen must continue to analyze a 
representative sample of the waste for organic constituents annually. 
If operating conditions change as described in paragraph (4); Tokusen 
must reinstate all testing in paragraph (1)(A). They must prove through 
a new demonstration that their waste meets the conditions of the 
exclusion. Tokusen must continue organic testing of the dewatered WWTP 
sludge for the exclusion of that waste.
    (4) Changes in Operating Conditions: Paragraph (4) would allow 
Tokusen the flexibility of modifying its processes (for example, 
changes in equipment or change in operating conditions) to improve its 
treatment process. However, Tokusen must prove the effectiveness of the 
modified process and request approval from the EPA. Tokusen must manage 
wastes generated during the new process demonstration as hazardous 
waste until they have obtained written approval and paragraph (3) is 
satisfied.
    (5) Data Submittals: To provide appropriate documentation that 
Tokusen's facility is properly treating the waste, Tokusen must 
compile, summarize, and keep delisting records on-site for a minimum of 
five years. They should keep all analytical data obtained through 
Paragraph (3) including quality control information for five years. 
Paragraph (5) requires that Tokusen furnish these data upon request for 
inspection by any employee or representative of EPA or the State of 
Arkansas.
    If the proposed exclusion is made final, it will apply only to 670 
cubic yards of dewatered WWTP sludge, generated annually at the Tokusen 
facility after successful verification testing.
    We would require Tokusen to file a new delisting petition under any 
of the following circumstances:
    (a) If they significantly alter the manufacturing process treatment 
system except as described in paragraph (4);
    (b) If they use any new manufacturing or production process(es), or 
significantly change from the current process(es) described in their 
petition; or
    (c) If they make any changes that could affect the composition or 
type of waste generated.
    Tokusen must manage waste volumes greater than 670 cubic yards of 
dewatered WWTP sludge as hazardous until we grant a new exclusion.
    When this exclusion becomes final, Tokusen's management of the 
wastes covered by this petition would be relieved from Subtitle C 
jurisdiction. Tokusen must either treat, store, or dispose of the waste 
in an on-site facility. If not, Tokusen must ensure that it delivers 
the waste to an off-site storage, treatment, or disposal facility that 
has a State permit, license, or register to manage municipal or 
industrial solid waste.
    (6) Reopener: The purpose of paragraph 6 is to require Tokusen 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. 
Tokusen 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 Tokusen 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 (APA), 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 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 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 case by case. Where necessary, EPA will make a good cause 
finding to justify emergency rulemaking. See APA section 553 (b).
    (7) Notification Requirements: In order to adequately track wastes 
that have been delisted, EPA is requiring that Tokusen provide a one-
time notification to any State regulatory agency through which or to 
which the delisted waste is being carried. Tokusen must provide this 
notification within 60 days of commencing this activity.

B. What Happens if Tokusen Violates the Terms and Conditions?

    If Tokusen 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 evaluate the need for enforcement activities on a case-
by-case basis. The Agency expects Tokusen to conduct the appropriate 
waste analysis and comply with the criteria explained above in 
Condition 1 of the exclusion.

V. 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 Section 
Chief of the Delisting Section, Multimedia Planning and Permitting 
Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. Send a third copy to Ali Dorobati, 
Hazardous Waste Division, Active Sites Branch, Arkansas Department of 
Environmental Quality (ADEQ), P.O. Box 8913, Little Rock, Arkansas, 
72219-8913 Identify your comments at the top with this

[[Page 46145]]

regulatory docket number: ``F-02-ARDEL-Tokusen.''
    You should submit requests for a hearing to Carl Edlund, Director, 
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD), 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. Regulatory Impact

    Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of 
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory 
actions.
    The proposal to grant an exclusion is not significant, since its 
effect, if promulgated, would be to reduce the overall costs and 
economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. This 
reduction would be achieved by excluding waste generated at a specific 
facility from EPA's lists of hazardous wastes, thus enabling a facility 
to manage its waste as nonhazardous.
    Because there is no additional impact from this proposed rule, this 
proposal would not be a significant regulation, and no cost/benefit 
assessment is required. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
also exempted this rule from the requirement for OMB review under 
Section (6) of Executive Order 12866.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, whenever an 
agency is required to publish a general notice of rulemaking for any 
proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public 
comment a regulatory flexibility analysis which describes the impact of 
the rule on small entities (that is, small businesses, small 
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). No regulatory 
flexibility analysis is required, however, if the Administrator or 
delegated representative certifies that the rule will not have any 
impact on a small entities.
    This rule, if promulgated, will not have an adverse economic impact 
on small entities since its effect would be to reduce the overall costs 
of 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 this delisting decision is deregulatory in 
nature and does not impose any enforceable duty on any State, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector. In addition, the proposed 
delisting decision does not establish any regulatory requirements for 
small governments and so does not require a small government agency 
plan under UMRA section 203.

X. Executive Order 13045

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

[[Page 46146]]

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) if 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: July 2, 2002.
Steve Vargo,
Acting Director, Multimedia Planning & 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
Tokusen USA, Inc........................  Conway, AR.................  Dewatered wastewater treatment plant
                                                                        (WWTP) sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.
                                                                        F006) generated at a maximum annual rate
                                                                        of 670 cubic yards per calendar year
                                                                        after [insert publication date of the
                                                                        final rule] and disposed in a Subtitle D
                                                                        landfill. For the exclusion to be valid,
                                                                        Tokusen must implement a testing program
                                                                        that meets the following Paragraphs:
                                                                       (1) Delisting Levels: All leachable
                                                                        concentrations for those constituents
                                                                        must not exceed the following levels (mg/
                                                                        1). The petitioner must use an
                                                                        acceptable leaching method, for example
                                                                        SW-846, Method 1311 to measure
                                                                        constituents in the waste leachate.
                                                                       Dewatered WWTP sludge (i) Inorganic
                                                                        Constituents Antimony-0.360; Arsenic-
                                                                        0.0654; Barium-51.1; Chromium-5.0;
                                                                        Cobalt-15.7; Copper-7,350; Lead-5.0;
                                                                        Nickel-19.7; Selenium-1.0; Silver-2.68;
                                                                        Vanadium-14.8; Zinc-196. (ii) Organic
                                                                        Constituents 1,4 Dichlorobenzene-3.03;
                                                                        hexachlorobutadiene-0.21.
                                                                       (2) Waste Holding and Handling: Tokusen
                                                                        must store the dewatered WWTP sludge as
                                                                        described in its RCRA permit, or
                                                                        continue to dispose of as hazardous all
                                                                        dewatered WWTP sludge generated, until
                                                                        they have completed 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 dewatered WWTP sludge
                                                                        that do not exceed the levels set forth
                                                                        in Paragraph (1) are non-hazardous.
                                                                        Tokusen can manage and dispose the non-
                                                                        hazardous dewatered WWTP sludge
                                                                        according to all applicable solid waste
                                                                        regulations.
                                                                       (C) If constituent levels in a sample
                                                                        exceed any of the delisting levels set
                                                                        in Paragraph (1), Tokusen must retreat
                                                                        the batches of waste used to generate
                                                                        the representative sample until it meets
                                                                        the levels. Tokusen must repeat the
                                                                        analyses of the treated waste.

[[Page 46147]]

 
                                                                       (D) If the facility has not treated the
                                                                        waste, Tokusen must manage and dispose
                                                                        the waste generated under Subtitle C of
                                                                        RCRA.
                                                                       (3) Verification Testing Requirements:
                                                                        Tokusen must perform sample collection
                                                                        and analyses, including quality control
                                                                        procedures, according to SW-846
                                                                        methodologies. If EPA judges the process
                                                                        to be effective under the operating
                                                                        conditions used during the initial
                                                                        verification testing, Tokusen may
                                                                        replace the testing required in
                                                                        Paragraph (3)(A) with the testing
                                                                        required in Paragraph (3)(B). Tokusen
                                                                        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, Tokusen
                                                                        must do the following: (i) Collect and
                                                                        analyze composites of the dewatered WWTP
                                                                        sludge. (ii) Make two composites of
                                                                        representative grab samples collected.
                                                                        (iii) Analyze the waste, before
                                                                        disposal, for all of the constituents
                                                                        listed in Paragraph 1. (iv) Sixty (60)
                                                                        days after this exclusion becomes final,
                                                                        report the operational and analytical
                                                                        test data, including quality control
                                                                        information.
                                                                       (B) Subsequent Verification Testing:
                                                                        Following written notification by EPA,
                                                                        Tokusen may substitute the testing
                                                                        conditions in (3)(B) for (3)(A). Tokusen
                                                                        must continue to monitor operating
                                                                        conditions, and analyze representative
                                                                        samples each quarter of operation during
                                                                        the first year of waste generation. The
                                                                        samples must represent the waste
                                                                        generated during the quarter.
                                                                       (C) Termination of Organic Testing: (i)
                                                                        Tokusen must continue testing as
                                                                        required under Paragraph (3)(B) for
                                                                        organic constituents in Paragraph
                                                                        (1)(A)(ii), until the analytical results
                                                                        submitted under Paragraph (3)(B) show a
                                                                        minimum of two consecutive samples below
                                                                        the delisting levels in Paragraph
                                                                        (1)(A)(i), Tokusen may then request that
                                                                        EPA stop quarterly organic testing.
                                                                        After EPA notifies Tokusen in writing,
                                                                        the company may end quarterly organic
                                                                        testing. (ii) Following cancellation of
                                                                        the quarterly testing, Tokusen must
                                                                        continue to test a representative
                                                                        composite sample for all constituents
                                                                        listed in Paragraph (1) annually (by
                                                                        twelve months after final exclusion).
                                                                       (4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If
                                                                        Tokusen significantly changes the
                                                                        process described in its petition or
                                                                        starts any processes that generate(s)
                                                                        the waste that may or could affect the
                                                                        composition or type of waste generated
                                                                        as established under Paragraph (1) (by
                                                                        illustration, but not limitation,
                                                                        changes in equipment or operating
                                                                        conditions of the treatment process),
                                                                        they must notify EPA in writing; they
                                                                        may no longer handle the wastes
                                                                        generated from the new process as
                                                                        nonhazardous until the wastes meet the
                                                                        delisting levels set in Paragraph (1)
                                                                        and they have received written approval
                                                                        to do so from EPA.
                                                                       (5) Data Submittals: Tokusen must submit
                                                                        the information described below. If
                                                                        Tokusen 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. Tokusen
                                                                        must:
                                                                       (A) Submit the data obtained through
                                                                        Paragraph 3 to the Section 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 Arkansas request
                                                                        them for inspection.
                                                                       (D) Send along with all data a signed
                                                                        copy of the following certification
                                                                        statement, to attest to the truth and
                                                                        accuracy of the data submitted: Under
                                                                        civil and criminal penalty of law for
                                                                        the making or submission of false or
                                                                        fraudulent statements or representations
                                                                        (pursuant to the applicable provisions
                                                                        of the Federal Code, which include, but
                                                                        may not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. 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 46148]]

 
                                                                       (6) Reopener: (A) If, anytime after
                                                                        disposal of the delisted waste, Tokusen
                                                                        possesses or is otherwise made aware of
                                                                        any environmental data (including but
                                                                        not limited to leachate data or
                                                                        groundwater monitoring data) or any
                                                                        other data relevant to the delisted
                                                                        waste indicating that any constituent
                                                                        identified for the delisting
                                                                        verification testing is at level higher
                                                                        than the delisting level allowed by the
                                                                        Regional Administrator or his delegate
                                                                        in granting the petition, then the
                                                                        facility must report the data, in
                                                                        writing, to the Regional Administrator
                                                                        or his delegate within 10 days of first
                                                                        possessing or being made aware of that
                                                                        data.
                                                                       (B) If the annual testing of the waste
                                                                        does not meet the delisting requirements
                                                                        in Paragraph 1, Tokusen 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 Tokusen 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 notice shall
                                                                        include a statement of the proposed
                                                                        action and a statement providing the
                                                                        facility with an opportunity to present
                                                                        information as to why the proposed
                                                                        Agency action is not necessary. The
                                                                        facility shall have 10 days from the
                                                                        date of the Regional Administrator or
                                                                        his delegate's notice to present such
                                                                        information.
                                                                       (E) Following the receipt of information
                                                                        from the facility described in paragraph
                                                                        (6)(D) or (if no information is
                                                                        presented under paragraph (6)(D)) the
                                                                        initial receipt of information described
                                                                        in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B), the
                                                                        Regional Administrator or his delegate
                                                                        will issue a final written determination
                                                                        describing the 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.
                                                                       (7) Notification Requirements: Tokusen
                                                                        must do the following before
                                                                        transporting the delisted waste: Failure
                                                                        to provide this notification will result
                                                                        in a violation of the delisting petition
                                                                        and a possible revocation of the
                                                                        decision.
                                                                       (A) Provide a one-time written
                                                                        notification to any State Regulatory
                                                                        Agency to which or through which they
                                                                        will transport the delisted waste
                                                                        described above for disposal, 60 days
                                                                        before beginning such activities.
                                                                       (B) Update the one-time written
                                                                        notification if they ship the delisted
                                                                        waste into a different disposal
                                                                        facility.
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 02-17458 Filed 7-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P