[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 17, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12544-12547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-5641]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-7633-2]


Arizona: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management 
Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On October 27, 2000, we published an immediate final rule at 
65 FR 64369 to authorize revisions to Arizona's hazardous waste program 
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). At that time, 
we determined that the identified revisions to Arizona's hazardous 
waste program

[[Page 12545]]

satisfied all requirements for final authorization and authorized the 
changes through an immediate final rule. The immediate final rule was 
to be effective on December 26, 2000, unless written comments opposing 
the authorization were received during the comment period. At the same 
time, in the event we received written comments, we also published a 
proposed rule at 65 FR 64403 proposing these same changes to the 
Arizona hazardous waste program.
    As a result of comments received on the immediate final rule, we 
withdrew the immediate final rule on December 22, 2000 at 65 FR 80790. 
By this action, we are issuing a final rule authorizing the revisions 
to the Arizona hazardous waste program as listed in the immediate final 
rule at 65 FR 64369 and responding below to each of the comments 
received.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Final authorization for Arizona shall be effective on 
March 17, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa McClain-Vanderpool, WST-2, U.S. 
EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco 94105-3901, (415) 972-
3316.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reader should also refer to the proposed 
rule at 65 FR 64403 and the immediate final rule at 65 FR 64369, both 
published on October 27, 2000.

A. Background

    We received written comments from five parties during the comment 
period. Only one party submitted comments which opposed the 
authorization. One comment expressed reservations about the ability of 
the State to administer the hazardous waste program and noted that 
there are numerous facilities in Arizona still operating under interim 
status. One comment expressed concern about the propriety of this 
authorization when two Title VI (civil rights) administrative 
complaints against Arizona are pending. Another comment expressed 
concern that Arizona does not have adequate permitting staff in the 
hazardous waste program to review and process permit applications. One 
comment expressed concern that Arizona is not adequately monitoring 
hazardous waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal facilities (TSDFs) in 
the State, and that Arizona does not have an adequate compliance and 
enforcement program. Finally, four parties commented on EPA's statement 
in the immediate final rule that EPA ``continues to have independent 
authority under RCRA . . . [to] take enforcement action regardless of 
whether the State has taken its own actions.'' 65 FR 64369. 
Specifically, the comments indicated that this statement conflicts with 
the Eighth Circuit decision in Harmon Industries, Inc. v. Browner, 1919 
F.3d 894 (8th Circuit 1999).

B. What Were the Comments and Responses to EPA's Proposal?

    1. Comment: EPA received four comment letters objecting to EPA's 
assertion in the immediate final rule approving Arizona's RCRA program 
revisions that EPA retains the authority to take enforcement actions 
regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions. They assert 
that EPA's statement is in conflict with the holding in Harmon 
Industries, Inc. v. Browner, 191 F .3d 894 (8th Cir. 1999). In this 
decision, the court found ``no support either in the text of the 
statute or the legislative history for the proposition that the EPA is 
allowed to duplicate a state's enforcement authority with its own 
enforcement action.''
    EPA's Response: EPA has considered the comments it received 
regarding the effect of state authorization on federal enforcement. The 
Agency, however, does not agree with the commenters and has not changed 
the statement in the final rule. EPA continues to believe that the 
statement in the preamble reflects the correct reading of RCRA Sec.  
3008(a) which provides that EPA may bring an enforcement action in a 
State with an authorized program. The only restriction placed on EPA's 
authority to enforce in a State with an authorized program is that EPA 
shall give notice to the State prior to issuing an order or commencing 
a civil action. See 42 U.S.C. 3008(a)(2). EPA has simply restated a 
longstanding position taken in civil actions, administrative 
adjudications, and regulations. See, e.g., Power Engineering Co. v. 
U.S., 303 F.3d 1232 (10th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S.Ct. 1929 
(2003); In re: Bil-Dry Corp., 1998 WL 743914 (E.P.A. Oct. 8, 1998).
    2. In a fifth comment letter, the commenter objected to 
authorization and expressed several concerns about the Arizona 
hazardous waste program.
    Comment: EPA should not authorize the Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality's (ADEQ) RCRA program revisions when there are 
two outstanding Title VI (civil rights) administrative complaints that 
have been filed against ADEQ.
    EPA's Response: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits 
recipients of federal money, such as ADEQ, from discriminating against 
persons on the basis of color, race or national origin. Title VI 
prohibits both intentional and unintentional discrimination. 
Unintentional discrimination may be demonstrated if there is evidence 
that a recipient administers its programs in a way that results in a 
discriminatory effect. Two complaints related to hazardous waste 
management were filed on behalf of the communities located near two 
Arizona facilities, Heritage Environmental Services (Heritage) and 
Innovative Waste Utilization (IWU). The complaints alleged that ADEQ 
violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act when it issued or considered 
issuing the facilities' RCRA permits. Both Complaints were investigated 
and dismissed by EPA's Office of Civil Rights (OCR).
    Title VI complaints were filed in OCR, which has the legal 
authority and responsibility to investigate Title VI complaints filed 
with EPA. The complaints undergo a thorough, independent review, 
investigation and final decision. As of this date, both the complaint 
related to the IWU facility and the complaint related to the Heritage 
facility have been dismissed. In each case, OCR found no violations of 
Title VI or EPA's Title VI implementing regulations.
    Comment: EPA should not authorize ADEQ's program revisions while 
there are numerous facilities in Arizona that are operating under 
interim status permits.
    EPA's Response: EPA has been focusing on ADEQ's permitting 
activities and the need to complete permit processing for Arizona 
facilities. In the last two-year grant and in the current grant, ADEQ 
has committed to completion of all interim status permits. Staff and 
management vacancies in the past and, more recently, ADEQ's increased 
community involvement have delayed the permit approval process. ADEQ 
has however committed to meet EPA's national goal for permit decisions 
at facilities in the regulated universe by 2005. EPA is closely 
monitoring ADEQ's progress in meeting this commitment and we are 
confident they will make the agreed upon goal. Currently, there are six 
facilities operating under interim status, a significant decrease in 
the number of interim status facilities since 1998. There are ten 
facilities designated as interim status, inactive or closing. ADEQ 
estimates that they will be processing several additional closures 
within the next two years, which will further reduce the interim status 
universe. EPA is satisfied that ADEQ's progress on completion of the 
interim status permits is reasonable and adequate for purposes of this 
authorization decision.
    Comment: The commenter raised the issue of ADEQ's staff competence 
in reviewing and approving permit

[[Page 12546]]

applications. Specifically, the commenter questioned ADEQ's approval of 
the permit for Innovative Waste Utilization, Inc. (IWU) in spite of a 
deficient emergency plan.
    EPA's Response: ADEQ reviewed the draft permit application from IWU 
and found that it met all regulatory requirements, including those for 
the contingency plan (emergency plan). As a result of public comment, 
ADEQ revised the permit adding specificity as well as voluntary 
requirements in several sections, and adding conditions restricting 
transportation by schools, community education on potential emergencies 
and establishing a five year compliance and safety review to determine 
permit continuance. For example, compatibility testing requirements 
were added that include commonly accepted scientific references for 
compatibility, such as those identified in the EPA document Technical 
Resources Document for the Storage and Treatment of Hazardous Waste in 
Tank Systems (NIS PB 87-134391), and A Method for Determining the 
Compatibility of Hazardous Waste written by the California Department 
of Health Services (EPA Document 600/2-80-076). This information was 
not a requirement but rather supplemental information ADEQ chose to 
include to satisfy public concern.
    EPA monitors ADEQ's permit activities regularly and often reviews 
draft permit decisions to ensure the protection of human health and the 
environment. EPA is satisfied with the quality of ADEQ's permit 
decisions and the competence of the staff.
    Comment: The commenter questioned whether ADEQ was adequately 
monitoring (inspecting) Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities 
(TSDFs).
    EPA's Response: There are 26 Treatment, Storage and Disposal 
Facilities (TSDFs) in Arizona's universe of regulated hazardous waste 
facilities. RCRA requires that each TSDF be inspected every two years. 
ADEQ ensures that the appropriate number of RCRA inspections are 
conducted in Arizona, although at times ADEQ or EPA may inspect TSDFs 
more often. Every other year EPA conducts oversight of ADEQ inspections 
to determine the adequacy of their inspection program. In the oversight 
inspections, EPA has been satisfied with the quality of inspections as 
well as the competence of the inspection staff. In addition, EPA has 
not observed significant violations at these TSDFs. EPA also monitors 
ADEQ's program through reporting on grant work plan commitments, annual 
on-site evaluations and oversight inspections, conference calls and 
joint inspections. EPA is satisfied that ADEQ provides adequate 
coverage of the universe of hazardous waste facilities and we continue 
to monitor and oversee this program to ensure that the public and the 
environment are protected.
    Comment: In this comment, ADEQ's regulation of a particular 
facility, SONAS, was questioned. A lack of inspections at the facility 
was cited as evidence of ADEQ's failure to aggressively monitor 
compliance. The commenter also expressed concern about the treatment of 
contaminated soils at SONAS and the applicability of new rules on the 
treatment standards for metal wastes and mineral processing wastes to 
these soils.
    EPA's Response: The SONAS facility is not a hazardous waste 
facility; it is a solid non-hazardous waste facility. ADEQ's regulation 
of the SONAS facility is therefore not specifically applicable to EPA's 
authorization of revisions to Arizona's hazardous waste management 
program. The petroleum contaminated soil (PCS) and the metals 
contaminated waste accepted at the SONAS facility are not RCRA 
hazardous wastes. These soils are defined as solid waste in the Arizona 
regulations. Therefore, the newly promulgated treatment standards for 
metal wastes do not apply. The approved solid waste facility plan for 
SONAS is available for public review at ADEQ. The ADEQ Solid Waste 
Section and the ADEQ Air Quality Division have conducted inspections at 
this facility and oversee facility operations. Additionally, a joint 
inspection by EPA and ADEQ's Hazardous Waste Section was conducted in 
May 2002.
    Comment: The commenter raised questions regarding ADEQ's ability to 
carry out an adequate and equivalent RCRA compliance and enforcement 
program.
    EPA's Response: As a result of program evaluations and grant 
negotiations with EPA, ADEQ is implementing an escalated enforcement 
policy which has shown significant program improvements in state fiscal 
year 2002-2003. ADEQ has revised internal procedures and created and 
filled a new enforcement coordinator position. The Inspections and 
Compliance Unit has also undertaken a vigorous staff hiring and 
training program. EPA is satisfied that ADEQ is developing a strong and 
consistent compliance and enforcement program that is equivalent to 
EPA's program.

C. What Decisions Have We Made in This Rule?

    EPA has determined that approval of Arizona's RCRA program 
revisions identified in the October 27, 2000 immediate final rule (65 
FR 64369) and Proposed Rule (65 FR 64403) should proceed. After 
reviewing the public comments received in response to the proposed 
authorization, EPA has made a final determination that Arizona's 
application to revise its authorized program meets all the statutory 
and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant 
Arizona final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with 
the changes described in its application for program revisions 
previously identified. Arizona has responsibility for permitting 
Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders 
and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its 
application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid 
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and 
prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under 
the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are 
authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement any such HSWA 
requirements and prohibitions in Arizona, until the State is granted 
authorization to do so. ADEQ and EPA have agreed to a joint permitting 
process for RCRA permits for those provisions of HSWA for which ADEQ 
does not have authorization.
    For further information on the scope and effect of today's action 
to approve Arizona's RCRA program revisions, please refer to the 
preambles of EPA's October 27, 2000 Immediate Final Rule (65 FR 64369) 
and Proposed Rule (65 FR 64403), as well as the withdrawal of those 
rules on December 22, 2000 (65 FR 80790).

D. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This rule only authorizes hazardous waste requirements pursuant to 
RCRA 3006 and imposes no requirements other than those imposed by State 
law. Therefore, this rule complies with applicable executive orders and 
statutory provisions as follows:

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning Review

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from its 
review under Executive Order (EO) 12866.

[[Page 12547]]

2. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act.

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small 
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that this rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state 
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that 
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    EO 13132 does not apply to this rule because it will not have 
federalism implications (i.e., substantial direct effects on the State, 
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 described in EO 13132.

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    EO13175 does not apply to this rule because it will not have tribal 
implication (i.e., substantial direct effects on one or more Indian 
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes).

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health & Safety Risks

    This rule is not subject to EO 13045 because it is not economically 
significant and it is not based on health or safety risks.

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to EO 13211 because it is not a 
significant regulatory action as defined in EO 12866.

9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    EPA approves State programs as long as they meet criteria required 
by RCRA, so it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, in 
its review of a State program, to require the use of any particular 
voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that meets 
the requirements of RCRA. Thus, Section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advance Act does not apply to this rule.

10. Congressional Review Act

    EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other information 
required by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) to the 
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller 
General of the United States prior to publication in the Federal 
Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is 
published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action will be effective on March 
17, 2004.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste 
transportation, Indian Lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of sections 
2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended 
42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: February 29, 2004.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 04-5641 Filed 3-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P