[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 34 (Friday, February 20, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7888-7897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-3600]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[FRL-7625-2]


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 Bekaert 
Corporation (Bekaert) to exclude (or delist) a certain solid waste 
generated by its Dyersburg, Tennessee, facility from the lists of 
hazardous wastes.
    The EPA used the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) in the 
evaluation of the impact of the petitioned waste on human health and 
the environment.
    The EPA bases its proposed decision to grant the petition on an 
evaluation of waste-specific information provided by the petitioner. 
This proposed decision, if finalized, would exclude the petitioned 
waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
    If finalized, the EPA would conclude that Bekaert's petitioned 
waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria and 
that the generation of an F006 hazardous waste sludge from the 
treatment of waste waters from electroplating processes performed by 
the facility will not be hazardous at the point of generation because 
of the adequately reduced likelihood of migration of constituents from 
this waste. The EPA would also conclude that Bekaert's process 
minimizes short-term and long-term threats from the petitioned waste to 
human health and the environment.

DATES: The EPA will accept comments until April 5, 2004. The EPA will 
stamp comments received after the close of the comment period as late. 
These late comments may not be considered in formulating a final 
decision. Your requests for a hearing must reach the EPA by March 8, 
2004. The request

[[Page 7889]]

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 Chief, North Section, RCRA Enforcement and Compliance 
Branch, Waste Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, 
61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia, 30303. You should send a third 
copy to Mike Apple, Director, Division of Solid Waste Management, 
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, 5th Floor, L&C 
Tower, 401 Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee, 37243-1535. Identify 
your comments at the top with this regulatory docket number: R4DLP-
0401-Bekaert. You may submit your comments electronically to Daryl 
Himes at [email protected].
    You should address requests for a hearing to Jewell Grubbs, Chief, 
RCRA Enforcement and Compliance Branch, Waste Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general and technical information 
about this final rule, contact Daryl Himes, South Enforcement and 
Compliance Section (Mail Code 4WD-RCRA), RCRA Enforcement and 
Compliance Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Sam 
Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303 or call (404) 562-8614.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized 
as follows:

I. Overview Information
    A. What action is the EPA proposing?
    B. Why is the EPA proposing to approve this delisting?
    C. How will Bekaert manage the waste if it is delisted?
    D. When would the proposed delisting exclusion be finalized?
    E. How would this action affect States?
II. Background
    A. What is the history of the delisting program?
    B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a 
petitioner?
    C. What factors must the EPA consider in deciding whether to 
grant a delisting petition?
III. The EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
    A. What wastes did Bekaert petition the EPA to delist?
    B. Who is Bekaert and what process do they use to generate the 
petition waste?
    C. How did Bekaert sample and analyze the data in this petition?
    D. What were the results of Bekaert's analysis?
    E. How did the EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
    F. What did the EPA conclude about Bekaert's analysis?
    G. What other factors did the EPA consider in its evaluation?
    H. What is the EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
IV. Next Steps
    A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?
    B. What happens if Bekaert 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 Advancement Act
XIII. Executive Order 13132 Federalism

I. Overview Information

A. What Action Is the EPA Proposing?

    The EPA is proposing to grant the delisting petition submitted by 
Bekaert to have its dewatered waste water treatment plant (WWTP) sludge 
(F006 listed hazardous waste) excluded, or delisted, from the 
definition of a hazardous waste.

B. Why Is the EPA Proposing To Approve This Delisting?

    Bekaert's petition requests a delisting for the dewatered 
wastewater treatment plant (wwtp) sludge which result from the 
treatment of waste waters generated as a result of its electroplating 
operations. Bekaert does not believe that the petitioned waste meets 
the criteria for which the EPA listed it. Bekaert 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, the EPA evaluated the 
petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in 
Sec.  261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, the EPA agrees 
with the petitioner that the waste is nonhazardous with respect to the 
original listing criteria. (If the EPA had found, based on this review, 
that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for which the 
waste was originally listed, the EPA would have proposed to deny the 
petition.) The EPA evaluated the waste with respect to other factors or 
criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that 
such additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. The EPA 
considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the concentration of the 
constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to 
bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from 
the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned 
waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste variability. The 
EPA believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the listing 
criteria and thus should not be a listed waste. The EPA's proposed 
decision to delist waste from the Bekaert facility is based on the 
information submitted in support of this rule, including descriptions 
of the wastes and analytical data from the Dyersburg, Tennessee 
facility.

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

    Bekaert currently sends the petitioned waste to a hazardous waste 
landfill. If the delisting exclusion is finalized, Bekaert intends to 
dispose of the petitioned waste (i.e., dewatered WWTP sludge) in a 
subtitle D solid waste landfill in the State of Tennessee.

D. When Would the Proposed Delisting Exclusion Be Finalized?

    RCRA section 3001(f) specifically requires the EPA to provide 
notice and an opportunity for comment before granting or denying a 
final exclusion. Thus, the EPA will not grant the exclusion until it 
addresses all timely public comments (including those at public 
hearings, if any) on this proposal.
    RCRA section 3010(b)(1) at 42 U.S.C. 6930(b)(1), allows rules to 
become effective in less than six months after the EPA addresses public 
comments when the regulated facility does not need the six-month period 
to come into compliance. That is the case here, because this rule, if 
finalized, would reduce the existing requirements for persons 
generating hazardous wastes.
    The EPA believes that this exclusion should be effective 
immediately upon final publication because a six-month deadline is not 
necessary to achieve the purpose of section 3010(b), and a later 
effective date would impose unnecessary hardship and expense on this 
petitioner. These reasons also provide good cause for making this rule 
effective immediately, upon final publication, under the Administrative 
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

[[Page 7890]]

E. How Would This Action Affect the States?

    Because the EPA is issuing this exclusion under the Federal RCRA 
delisting program, only States subject to Federal RCRA delisting 
provisions would be affected. This would exclude States who have 
received authorization from the EPA to make their own delisting 
decisions.
    The EPA allows the States to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory 
requirements that are more stringent than the EPA's, under section 3009 
of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929. These more stringent requirements may include 
a provision that prohibits a Federally issued exclusion from taking 
effect in the State. Because a dual system (that is, both Federal 
(RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's 
waste, the EPA urges petitioners to contact the state regulatory 
authority to establish the status of their wastes under the State law. 
Delisting petitions approved by the EPA Administrator under 40 CFR 
260.22 are effective in the State of Tennessee only after the final 
rule has been published in the Federal Register.

II. Background

A. What Is the History of the Delisting Program?

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

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

    A delisting petition is a request from a facility to the EPA or an 
authorized State to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes. 
The facility petitions the EPA because it does not consider the wastes 
hazardous under RCRA regulations.
    In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that wastes 
generated at a particular facility do not meet any of the criteria for 
which the waste was listed. The criteria for which the EPA lists a 
waste are in part 261 and further explained in the background documents 
for the listed waste.
    In addition, under Sec.  260.22, a petitioner must prove that the 
waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (that 
is, ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and present 
sufficient information for the EPA to decide whether factors other than 
those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a 
hazardous waste. (See part 261 and the background documents for the 
listed waste.)
    Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm whether their 
waste remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics 
even if the EPA has ``delisted'' the waste.

C. What Factors Must the EPA Consider in Deciding Whether To Grant a 
Delisting Petition?

    Besides considering the criteria in Sec.  260.22(a) and section 
3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background documents for 
the listed wastes, the EPA must consider any factors (including 
additional constituents) other than those for which the EPA listed the 
waste if a reasonable basis exists that these additional factors could 
cause the waste to be hazardous.
    The EPA must also consider as hazardous waste mixtures containing 
listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or 
disposing of listed hazardous waste. See Sec.  261.3(a)(2)(iii) and 
(iv) and (c)(2)(i), called the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules, 
respectively. These wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain 
hazardous wastes until excluded. See 66 FR 27266 (May 16, 2001).

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

A. What Waste Did Bekaert Petition the EPA To Delist?

    On October 28, 2002, Bekaert petitioned the EPA to exclude from the 
lists of hazardous waste contained in Sec. Sec.  261.31 and 261.32, a 
dewatered WWTP sludge generated from the facility located in Dyersburg, 
Tennessee. The waste (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006) is generated by 
treating wastewater from the copper and zinc electroplating of steel 
cords for the automobile tire industry. Specifically, in its petition, 
Bekaert requested that the EPA grant an exclusion for 1250 cubic yards 
per calendar year of dewatered WWTP sludge resulting from the treatment 
of waste waters from an electroplating operation at its facility.

B. Who Is Bekaert and What Process Do They Use To Generate the Petition 
Waste?

    Bekaert is a facility located in an industrial setting in the 
northeast portion of the City of Dyersburg, Tennessee.
    Bekaert produces cabled wire which is a major component in the 
production of steel belted radial tires. The incoming ``raw material'' 
from which the wire is drawn is two (2) ton spools of high carbon steel 
wire rod. As part of the production process, the drawn wire is plated 
with copper and zinc. Treatment of the waste waters which result from 
the electroplating process result in the generation of sludges which 
are classified as F006 listed hazardous wastes pursuant to 40 CFR 
261.31. The 40 CFR part 261, appendix VII hazardous constituents for 
which F006 hazardous wastes are listed include cadmium, hexavalent 
chromium, nickel, and cyanide (complexed).

C. How Did Bekaert Sample and Analyze the Data in This Petition?

    To support its petition, Bekaert submitted:
    (1) Results of the total constituent analysis for metals;
    (2) Results of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure 
(TCLP) extract for the following: volatile and semivolatile organics, 
pesticides, herbicides, and metals.

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

    The EPA believes that the descriptions of Bekaert's dewatered WWTP 
sludge, in addition to the data submitted in support of the petition 
show that the dewatered WWTP sludge is nonhazardous. Analytical data 
from Bekaert's dewatered WWTP sludge samples were used for evaluation 
in the Delisting Risk Assessment Software. The data summaries for 
detected constituents are presented in Table I. The EPA has reviewed 
the sampling procedures used by Bekaert and has determined they satisfy 
the EPA's

[[Page 7891]]

criteria for collecting representative samples of the variations in 
constituent concentrations in the hazardous waste water treatment 
sludge. The data submitted in support of the petition show that 
constituents in Bekaert's waste are presently below health-based levels 
used in the delisting decision-making. The EPA believes that Bekaert 
has successfully demonstrated that the dewatered WWTP sludge is 
nonhazardous.

     Table 1.--Maximum TCLP Constituent Concentrations of the Stabilized Hazardous Dewatered WWTP Sludge and
                                       Corresponding Delisting Limits \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           TCLP       Maximum
                                                                     Total constituent   leachate    allowable
                            Constituent                              analyses  (mg/kg)  conc. (mg/   TCLP conc.
                                                                                            l)         (mg/l)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony...........................................................               <7.4         ND        0.922
Arsenic............................................................               <7.9         ND        0.0419
Barium.............................................................                300         ND      100
Cadmium............................................................               <8.4         ND        0.672
Chromium...........................................................               85.3         ND        5.0
Copper.............................................................               1200         ND     4710
Lead...............................................................               19.6         ND        5.0
Mercury............................................................           <0.04938         ND        0.2
Nickel.............................................................                109         ND      127
Selenium...........................................................              <4.94         ND        1.0
Silver.............................................................               <7.9         ND        5.0
Zinc...............................................................             27,700         74     1260
2,4-D..............................................................  .................         ND        5.96
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)..................................................  .................         ND        1.0
Benzene............................................................  .................         ND        0.806
                                                                     .................         ND        0.560
Chlorobenzene......................................................  .................         ND        8.51
Chloroform.........................................................  .................         ND        1.09
1,4-Dichlorobenzene................................................  .................         ND        2.46
1,2-Dichloroethane.................................................  .................         ND        0.5
1,1-Dichloroethene.................................................  .................         ND        0.0982
Methyl ethyl ketone................................................  .................       8.71      200
Tetrachloroethene..................................................  .................         ND        0.425
Trichloroethene....................................................  .................         ND        0.5
Vinyl Chloride.....................................................  .................         ND        0.0415
Cresols............................................................  .................         ND      200
m-Cresol...........................................................  .................         ND      200
m-,p-Cresols.......................................................  .................         ND      200
Pentachlorophenol..................................................  .................         ND      100
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol..............................................  .................         ND      400
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol..............................................  .................         ND        2.0
2,4-Dinitrotoluene.................................................  .................         ND        0.0915
Hexachlorobenzene..................................................  .................         ND        0.00295
Hexachlorobutadiene................................................  .................         ND        0.5
Hexachloroethane...................................................  .................         ND        1.38
Nitrobenzene.......................................................  .................         ND        2.0
Pyridine...........................................................  .................         ND        3.19
g-BHC (Lindane)....................................................  .................         ND        0.003
Chlordane..........................................................  .................         ND        0.0156
Endrin.............................................................  .................         ND        0.02
Heptachlor.........................................................  .................         ND        0.08
Heptachlor epoxide.................................................  .................         ND        0.08
Methoxychlor.......................................................  .................         ND       10
Toxaphene..........................................................  .................         ND        0.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 constitutent was not detected.

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

    For this delisting determination, we assumed that the waste would 
be disposed in a Subtitle D landfill and we considered transport of 
waste constituents through ground water, surface water and air. We 
evaluated Bekaert's petitioned waste using the Agency's Delisting Risk 
Assessment Software (DRAS) to predict the concentration of hazardous 
constituents that might be released from the petitioned waste and to 
determine if the waste would pose a threat. The DRAS uses EPA's 
Composite Model for leachate migration with Transformation Products 
(EPACMTP) to predict the potential for release to groundwater from 
landfilled wastes and subsequent routes of exposure to a receptor. From 
a release to ground water, we considered routes of exposure to a human 
receptor of ingestion of contaminated ground water, inhalation from 
groundwater via showering and dermal contact while bathing. The DRAS 
program considers the surface water pathway by erosion of waste from 
run-off from an open landfill. It evaluates the subsequent routes of 
exposure to a human receptor from such releases through exposure 
pathways of

[[Page 7892]]

fish ingestion and ingestion of drinking water. DRAS also considers 
releases of waste particles and volatile emissions to air from the 
surface of an open landfill. From a release to air, we considered 
routes of exposures of inhalation of particulates and absorption into 
the lungs, ingestion of particulates eliminated from respiratory 
passages and subsequently swallowed, air deposition of particulates and 
subsequent ingestion of the soil/waste mixture, and inhalation of 
volatile constituents.
    We used the maximum estimated waste volume and the maximum reported 
total and leachate concentration as inputs to estimate the constituent 
concentrations in the ground water, soil, surface water or air.
    Assuming a cancer risk of 1 x 10-5 and a hazard quotient of one, 
the DRAS program back calculated a maximum allowable concentration 
level which would not exceed protective levels in both the waste and 
the leachate for each constituent at the given annual waste volume of 
1,250 cubic yards.

F. What Did the EPA Conclude About Bekaert's Analysis?

    The EPA concluded, after reviewing Bekaert's processes that no 
other hazardous constituents of concern, other than those for which the 
testing was completed, are likely to be present or formed as reaction 
products or by-products in Bekaert's wastes. In addition, on the basis 
of explanations and analytical data provided by Bekaert, pursuant to 
Sec.  260.22, the EPA concludes that the petitioned wastes do not 
exhibit any of the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, or 
reactivity. See Sec. Sec.  261.21, 261.22 and 261.23, respectively.

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

    During the evaluation of this petition, the EPA also considered the 
potential impact of the petitioned waste via non-ground water routes 
(i.e., air emission and surface runoff). With regard to airborne 
dispersion in particular, the EPA believes that exposure to airborne 
contaminants from the petitioned waste is unlikely. Therefore, no 
appreciable air releases are likely from the dewatered WWTP sludge 
under any likely disposal conditions. The EPA evaluated the potential 
hazards resulting from the unlikely scenario of airborne exposure to 
hazardous constituents released from the waste water treatment sludge 
in an open landfill. The results of this worst-case analysis indicated 
that there is no substantial present or potential hazard to human 
health and the environment from airborne exposure to constituents from 
the hazardous waste water treatment sludge.
    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 proposal due to the aggressive 
acidic medium used for extraction in the TCLP. The EPA believes that, 
in general, leachate derived from the waste is unlikely to directly 
enter a surface water body without first traveling through the 
saturated subsurface where dilution and attenuation of hazardous 
constituents will also occur. Leachable concentrations provide a direct 
measure of solubility of a toxic constituent in water and are 
indicative of the fraction of the constituent that may be mobilized in 
surface water as well as ground water.
    Based on the reasons discussed above, the EPA believes that the 
contamination of surface water through runoff from the waste disposal 
area is very unlikely. Nevertheless, the EPA evaluated the potential 
impacts on surface water if the dewatered WWTP sludge were released 
from a municipal solid waste landfill through runoff and erosion. The 
estimated levels of the hazardous constituents of concern in surface 
water would be well below health-based levels for human health, as well 
as below the EPA Chronic Water Quality Criteria for aquatic organisms 
(US EPA, OWRS, 1987). The EPA, therefore, concluded that this hazardous 
waste water 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 the EPA's Evaluation of This Delisting Petition?

    The descriptions by Bekaert of the hazardous waste process and 
analytical characterization, with the proposed verification testing 
requirements (as discussed later in this proposal), provide a 
reasonable basis for the EPA to grant the exclusion. The data submitted 
in support of the petition show that constituents in the waste are 
below the maximum allowable leachable concentrations (see table 1). The 
EPA believes that the dewatered WWTP sludge generated by Bekaert 
contains hazardous constituents at levels which will present minimal 
short-term and long-term threats from the petitioned waste to human 
health and the environment.
    Thus, the EPA believes that it should grant to Bekaert an exclusion 
for the dewatered WWTP sludge. The EPA believes the data submitted in 
support of the petition shows the Bekaert dewatered WWTP sludge to be 
nonhazardous.
    The EPA has reviewed the sampling procedures used by Bekaert and 
has determined they satisfy the EPA's 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 Bekaert's waste are presently below the 
compliance point concentrations used in the delisting decision-making 
process and would not pose a substantial hazard to the environment. The 
EPA believes that Bekaert has successfully demonstrated that the 
dewatered WWTP sludge is nonhazardous.
    The EPA therefore proposes to grant an exclusion to Bekaert, in 
Dyersburg, Tennessee, for the dewatered WWTP sludge described in its 
petition. The EPA's decision to exclude this waste is based on analysis 
performed on samples taken of the dewatered WWTP sludge.
    If the EPA finalizes the proposed rule, the EPA will no longer 
regulate the dewatered WWTP sludge 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, Bekaert, must comply with the requirements in 40 
CFR part 261, appendix IX, table 1 as amended by this proposal. The 
text below gives the rationale and details of those requirements.
(1) Delisting Levels
    This paragraph provides the levels of constituents for which 
Bekaert must test the leachate from the dewatered WWTP sludge; the 
leachate must conform to the standards described below to be considered 
nonhazardous.
    The EPA selected the set of inorganic and organic constituents 
specified in paragraph (1) and listed in 40 CFR part 261, appendix IX, 
table 1, based on information in the petition. The EPA compiled the 
inorganic and organic constituents list from descriptions of the 
manufacturing process used by Bekaert, previous test data provided for 
the waste, and the respective health-based

[[Page 7893]]

levels used in delisting decision-making. These delisting levels 
correspond to the allowable levels measured in the TCLP extract and 
total concentrations of the waste.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling
    The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that Bekaert 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.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements
    Bekaert must complete a verification testing program on the 
dewatered WWTP sludge to assure that the dewatered WWTP sludge does not 
exceed the maximum levels specified in paragraph (1). If the EPA 
determines that the data collected under this paragraph does not 
support the data provided for in the petition, the exclusion will not 
cover the tested waste. This verification program operates on a 
quarterly basis followed by an annual basis. The first part of the 
verification testing program consists of testing the dewatered WWTP 
sludge for specified indicator parameters as per paragraph (1) on a 
quarterly basis. The quarter testing will be performed for four (4) 
quarters by taking a composite sample consisting of four (4) grab 
samples from an individual roll-off container once this rule is final. 
The first sample can be taken at any time following this rule being 
final. The remaining quarterly samples shall be taken at ninety (90) 
day intervals from the taking of the first quarterly sample. If any 
roll-off fails to meet the specified limits, then Bekaert must dispose 
of the waste as hazardous.
    The second part of the verification testing program is the annual 
testing of one composite samples of dewatered WWTP sludge for all 
constituents specified in paragraph (1). The first and subsequent 
annual tests should coincide with the month during which the final 
quarterly test was performed. If the annual testing of the waste does 
not meet the delisting requirements in paragraph (1), Bekaert must 
notify the EPA according to the requirements in paragraph (6). The EPA 
will then take the appropriate actions necessary to protect human 
health and the environment per paragraph (6).
    The exclusion is effective upon publication in the Federal Register 
but the disposal cannot begin until the first quarterly verification 
sampling is completed and is approved by EPA. Disposal is also not 
authorized if Bekaert fails to perform the quarterly and yearly testing 
as specified herein. Should Bekaert fail to conduct the quarterly/
yearly testing as specified herein, then disposal of dewatered WWTP 
sludge as delisted waste may not occur in the following quarter(s)/
year(s) until Bekaert obtains the written approval of the EPA.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions
    Paragraph (4) would allow Bekaert the flexibility of modifying its 
processes (for example, changes in equipment or change in operating 
conditions) to improve its treatment processes. However, Bekaert must 
prove the effectiveness of the modified process and request approval 
from the EPA. Bekaert 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 Bekaert's facility is 
managing the dewatered WWTP sludge, Bekaert 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 Bekaert furnish these data upon request for inspection by 
any employee or representative of the EPA or the State of Tennessee.
    If the proposed exclusion is made final, then it will apply only to 
1250 cubic yards per calendar year of dewatered WWTP sludge generated 
at the Bekaert facility after successful verification testing.
    The EPA would require Bekaert to file a new delisting petition 
under any of the following circumstances:
    (a) If Bekaert significantly alters the manufacturing process 
treatment system except as described in paragraph (4).
    (b) If Bekaert uses any new manufacturing or production 
process(es), or significantly change from the current process(es) 
described in its petition; or
    (c) If Bekaert makes any changes that could affect the composition 
or type of waste generated.
    Bekaert must manage waste volumes greater than 1250 cubic yards per 
calendar year of dewatered WWTP sludge as hazardous waste until the EPA 
grants a new exclusion. When this exclusion becomes final, the 
management by Bekaert of the dewatered WWTP sludge covered by this 
petition would be relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction. Bekaert must 
either (a) treat, store, or dispose of the waste in a State permitted 
on-site facility, or (b) Bekaert 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 consistent with the requirements of RCRA.
(6) Reopener
    The purpose of paragraph (6) is to require Bekaert 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. Bekaert must 
also use this procedure if the waste sample in the annual testing fails 
to meet the levels found in paragraph (1). This provision will allow 
the EPA to reevaluate the exclusion if a source provides new or 
additional information to the EPA. The EPA will evaluate the 
information on which it based the decision to see if it is still 
correct, or if circumstances have changed so that the information is no 
longer correct or would cause the EPA to deny the petition if 
presented.
    This provision expressly requires Bekaert to report differing site 
conditions or assumptions used in the petition in addition to failure 
to meet the annual testing conditions within ten (10) days of 
discovery. If the EPA discovers such information itself or from a third 
party, it can act on it as appropriate. The language being proposed is 
similar to those provisions found in RCRA regulations governing no-
migration petitions at Sec.  268.6.
    The EPA believes that it has the authority under RCRA and the 
Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et seq., to 
reopen a delisting decision. The EPA may reopen a delisting decision 
when it receives new information that calls into question the 
assumptions underlying the delisting.
    The EPA believes a clear statement of its authority in delistings 
is merited in light of the EPA experience. See Reynolds Metals Company 
at 62 FR 37694 (July 14, 1997) and 62 FR 63458 (December 1, 1997) where 
the delisted waste leached at greater concentrations in the environment 
than the concentrations predicted when conducting the TCLP, thus 
leading the EPA to repeal the delisting. If an immediate threat to 
human health and the environment presents itself, the EPA will continue 
to address these situations case by case. Where necessary, the EPA will 
make a good cause finding to justify

[[Page 7894]]

emergency rulemaking. See APA section 553(b).
(7) Notification Requirements
    In order to adequately track wastes that have been delisted, the 
EPA is requiring that Bekaert provide a one-time notification to any 
State regulatory agency through which or to which the delisted waste is 
being carried. Bekaert must provide this notification within sixty (60) 
days of commencing this activity.

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

    If Bekaert violates the terms and conditions established in the 
exclusion, the EPA will initiate procedures to withdraw the exclusion. 
Where there is an immediate threat to human health and the environment, 
the EPA will evaluate the need for enforcement activities on a case-by-
case basis. The EPA expects Bekaert to conduct the appropriate waste 
analysis and comply with the criteria explained above in paragraph (1) 
of the exclusion.

V. Public Comments

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

    The EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision. 
Please send three copies of your comments. Send two copies to the 
Chief, North Section, RCRA Enforcement and Compliance Branch, U. S. 
Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Send a third copy to Mr. 
Mike Apple, Director, Division of Solid Waste Management, Tennessee 
Department of Environment and Conservation, 5th Floor, L&C Tower, 401 
Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1535. You should identify 
your comments at the top with this regulatory docket number: R$DLP-
0301-Bekaert.
    You should submit requests for a hearing to Jewell Grubbs, Chief, 
RCRA Enforcement and Compliance Branch, Waste Division, U. S. 
Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

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

    You may review the RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule at 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Atlanta Federal 
Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
    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 (404) 562-8614 for appointments. The public may 
copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the first 100 
pages, and at fifteen cents per page for additional copies.

VI. Regulatory Impact

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

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, whenever an 
agency is required to publish a general notice of rulemaking for any 
proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public 
comment a regulatory flexibility analysis which describes the impact of 
the rule on small entities (that is, small businesses, small 
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). No regulatory 
flexibility analysis is required, however, if the Administrator or 
delegated representative certifies that the rule will not have any 
impact on small entities.
    This rule, if promulgated, will not have an adverse economic impact 
on small entities since its effect would be to reduce the overall costs 
of the EPA's hazardous waste regulations and would be limited to one 
facility. Accordingly, the EPA hereby certifies that this proposed 
regulation, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation, therefore, 
does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

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

X. Executive Order 13045

    The Executive Order 13045 is entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997). This order applies to any rule that the EPA determines (1) is 
economically

[[Page 7895]]

significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) the 
environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by the EPA. This proposed rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because this is not an economically 
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.

XI. Executive Order 13084

    Because this action does not involve any requirements that affect 
Indian Tribes, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 
13084 do not apply.
    Under Executive Order 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation 
that is not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely 
affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments.
    If the mandate is unfunded, the EPA must provide to the Office of 
Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the 
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of the EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation.
    In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected and other representatives of 
Indian tribal governments to have ``meaningful and timely input'' in 
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or 
uniquely affect their communities of Indian tribal governments. This 
action does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian 
Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive 
Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

XII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act, the EPA is directed to use voluntary consensus 
standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices, 
etc.) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. 
Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus 
standards are not used by the EPA, the Act requires that the EPA 
provide Congress, through the OMB, an explanation of the reasons for 
not using such standards.
    This rule does not establish any new technical standards and thus, 
the EPA has no need to consider the use of voluntary consensus 
standards in developing this final rule.

XIII. Executive Order 13132 Federalism

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: February 10, 2004.
Winston A. Smith,
Director, Waste Management Division, Region 4.
    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 appendix IX to part 261, in table 1, revise the following 
waste stream, and in tables 2 and 3, add the following waste stream in 
alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Facility                                 Address                                             Waste description
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Bekaert Corp..........................  Dyersburg, TN.........................  Dewatered wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste
                                                                                 Nos. F006) generated at a maximum rate of 1250 cubic yards per calendar
                                                                                 year after [publication date of the final rule] and disposed in a
                                                                                 Subtitle D landfill.
                                                                                For the exclusion to be valid, Bekaert must implement a verification
                                                                                 testing program that meets the following paragraphs:

[[Page 7896]]

 
                                                                                (1) Delisting Levels: All leachable concentrations for those
                                                                                 constituents must not exceed the maximum allowable concentrations in mg/
                                                                                 l specified in this paragraph. Bekaert must use the leaching method
                                                                                 specified at 40 CFR 261.24 to measure constituents in the waste
                                                                                 leachate. (A) Inorganic Constituents (from Table 1) TCLP (mg/l):
                                                                                 Cadmium--0.672; Chromium--5.0; Nickel--127; Zinc--1260.0. (B) Organic
                                                                                 Constituents (from Table 1) TCLP (mg/l): Methyl ethyl ketone--200.0.
                                                                                (2) Waste Holding and Handling: (A) Bekaert must accumulate the
                                                                                 hazardous waste dewatered WWTP sludge in accordance with the applicable
                                                                                 regulations of 40 CFR 262.34 and continue to dispose of the dewatered
                                                                                 WWTP sludge as hazardous waste. (B) Once the first quarterly sampling
                                                                                 and analyses event described in paragraph (3) is completed and valid
                                                                                 analyses demonstrate that no constituent is present in the sample at a
                                                                                 level which exceeds the delisting levels set in paragraph (1), Bekaert
                                                                                 can manage and dispose of the dewatered WWTP sludge as nonhazardous
                                                                                 according to all applicable solid waste regulations. (C) If constituent
                                                                                 levels in any sample taken by Bekaert exceed any of the delisting
                                                                                 levels set in paragraph (1), Bekaert must do the following: (i) notify
                                                                                 EPA in accordance with paragraph (6) and (ii) manage and dispose the
                                                                                 dewatered WWTP sludge as hazardous waste generated under Subtitle C of
                                                                                 RCRA. (D) Quarterly Verification Testing Requirements: Upon this
                                                                                 exclusion becoming final, Bekaert may begin the quarterly testing
                                                                                 requirements of paragraph (3) on its dewatered WWTP sludge.
                                                                                (3) Quarterly Testing Requirements: Upon this exclusion becoming final,
                                                                                 Bekaert may perform quarterly analytical testing by sampling and
                                                                                 analyzing the dewatered WWTP sludge as follows: (A)(i) Collect four
                                                                                 representative composite samples of the hazardous waste dewatered WWTP
                                                                                 sludge at quarterly (ninety (90) day) intervals after EPA grants the
                                                                                 final exclusion. The first composite sample may be taken at any time
                                                                                 after EPA grants the final approval. (ii) Analyze the samples for all
                                                                                 constituents listed in paragraph (1). Any roll-offs from which the
                                                                                 composite sample is taken exceeding the delisting levels listed in
                                                                                 paragraph (1) must be disposed as hazardous waste in a Subtitle C
                                                                                 landfill. (iii) Within forty-five (45) days after taking its first
                                                                                 quarterly sample, Bekaert will report its first quarterly analytical
                                                                                 test data to EPA. If levels of constituents measured in the sample of
                                                                                 the dewatered WWTP sludge do not exceed the levels set forth in
                                                                                 paragraph (1) of this exclusion, Bekaert can manage and dispose the
                                                                                 nonhazardous dewatered WWTP sludge according to all applicable solid
                                                                                 waste regulations.
                                                                                (4) Annual Testing: (A) If Bekaert completes the quarterly testing
                                                                                 specified in paragraph (3) above and no sample contains a constituent
                                                                                 with a level which exceeds the limits set forth in paragraph (1),
                                                                                 Bekaert may begin annual testing as follows: Bekaert must test one
                                                                                 representative composite sample of the dewatered WWTP sludge for all
                                                                                 constituents listed in paragraph (1) at least once per calendar year.
                                                                                 (B) The sample for the annual testing shall be a representative
                                                                                 composite sample (according to SW-846 methodologies) for all
                                                                                 constituents listed in paragraph (1). (C) The sample for the annual
                                                                                 testing taken for the second and subsequent annual testing events shall
                                                                                 be taken within the same calendar month as the first annual sample
                                                                                 taken.
                                                                                (5) Changes in Operating Conditions: If Bekaert significantly changes
                                                                                 the process described in its petition or starts any processes that
                                                                                 generate(s) the waste that may or could affect the composition or type
                                                                                 of waste generated as established under paragraph (1) (by illustration,
                                                                                 but not limitation, changes in equipment or operating conditions of the
                                                                                 treatment process), it must notify the EPA in writing; it may no longer
                                                                                 handle the wastes generated from the new process as nonhazardous until
                                                                                 the wastes meet the delisting levels set in paragraph (1) and it has
                                                                                 received written approval to do so from the EPA.
                                                                                (6) Data Submittals: Bekaert must submit the information described
                                                                                 below. If Bekaert fails to submit the required data within the
                                                                                 specified time or maintain the required records on-site for the
                                                                                 specified time, the EPA, at its discretion, will consider this
                                                                                 sufficient basis to reopen the exclusion as described in paragraph (6).
                                                                                 Bekaert must: (A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph (3) to the
                                                                                 Chief, North Section, RCRA Enforcement and Compliance Branch, Waste
                                                                                 Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, 61 Forsyth
                                                                                 Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia, 30303, within the time specified. (B)
                                                                                 Compile records of analytical data from paragraph (3), summarized, and
                                                                                 maintained on-site for a minimum of five years. (C) Furnish these
                                                                                 records and data when either the EPA or the State of Tennessee request
                                                                                 them for inspection. (D) Send along with all data a signed copy of the
                                                                                 following certification statement, to attest to the truth and accuracy
                                                                                 of the data submitted: ``Under civil and criminal penalty of law for
                                                                                 the making or submission of false or fraudulent statements or
                                                                                 representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Federal
                                                                                 Code, which include, but may not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 42
                                                                                 U.S.C. 6928), I certify that the information contained in or
                                                                                 accompanying this document is true, accurate and complete. As to the
                                                                                 (those) identified section(s) of this document for which I cannot
                                                                                 personally verify its (their) truth and accuracy, I certify as the
                                                                                 company official having supervisory responsibility for the persons who,
                                                                                 acting under my direct instructions, made the verification that this
                                                                                 information is true, accurate and complete. If any of this information
                                                                                 is determined by the EPA in its sole discretion to be false, inaccurate
                                                                                 or incomplete, and upon conveyance of this fact to the company, I
                                                                                 recognize and agree that this exclusion of waste will be void as if it
                                                                                 never had effect or to the extent directed by the EPA and that the
                                                                                 company will be liable for any actions taken in contravention of the
                                                                                 company's RCRA and CERCLA obligations premised upon the company's
                                                                                 reliance on the void exclusion.''

[[Page 7897]]

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

[FR Doc. 04-3600 Filed 2-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P