Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion, 28275-28279 [06-4514]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
and public procedure is impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public
interest. This determination must be
supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C.
808(2). As stated previously, EPA had
made such a good cause finding,
including the reasons therefore, and
established an effective date of May 16,
2006. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. This correction to
40 CFR part 52 for Minnesota is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: May 5, 2006.
Norman Niedergang,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
part 52, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of the Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
I
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
§ 52.2587
[Redesignated]
2. Section 52.2587 is redesignated as
§ 52.2589.
I
[FR Doc. 06–4551 Filed 5–15–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW–FRL–8169–5]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is granting a petition
submitted by Bayer Material Science
LLC (Bayer) to exclude (or delist) a
certain solid waste generated by its
Baytown, TX plant from the lists of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 May 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
hazardous wastes. This final rule
responds to the petition submitted by
Bayer to delist K027, K104, K111, and
K112 spent carbon generated from the
facility’s waste water treatment plant.
After careful analysis and use of the
Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS), EPA has concluded the
petitioned waste is not hazardous waste.
This exclusion applies to 7,728 cubic
yards per year of the spent carbon.
DATES: Effective Date: May 16, 2006.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this
final rule is located at the EPA Region
6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas
75202, and is available for viewing in
EPA’s Freedom of Information Act
review room on the 7th floor from 9 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. Call (214)
665–6444 for appointments. The
reference number for this docket is [R6–
TXDEL–FY06–Bayer–Spent Carbon].
The public may copy material from any
regulatory docket at no cost for the first
100 pages and at a cost of $0.15 per page
for additional copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben
Banipal, Section Chief of the Corrective
Action and Waste Minimization
Section, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division (6PD–C), EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202. For technical information
concerning this notice, contact Michelle
Peace, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, (6PD–C), Dallas, Texas 75202,
at (214) 665–7430, or
peace.michelle@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Action?
C. What Are the Limits of This exclusion?
D. How Will Bayer Manage the Waste, If It
Is Delisted?
E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion
Effective?
F. How Does this Final Rule Affect States?
II. Background
A. What Is a Delisting?
B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To
Delist a Waste?
C. What Information Must the Generator
Supply?
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What Waste Did Bayer Petition EPA To
Delist?
B. How Much Waste Did Bayer Propose To
Delist?
C. How Did Bayer Sample and Analyze the
Waste Data in This Petition?
IV. Public Comments Received on the
Proposed Exclusion
Who Submitted Comments on the
Proposed Rule?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28275
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?
After evaluating the petition, EPA
proposed, on February 14, 2006, to
exclude the waste from the lists of
hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.31
and 261.32 (see 71 FR 7704). EPA is
finalizing the decision to grant Bayer’s
delisting petition to have its spent
carbon generated from treating waste
waters at the plant subject to certain
continued verification and monitoring
conditions.
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Action?
Bayer’s petition requests a delisting
from the K027, K104, K111, and K112,
waste listings under 40 CFR 260.20 and
260.22. Bayer does not believe that the
petitioned waste meets the criteria for
which EPA listed it. Bayer also believes
no additional constituents or factors
could cause the waste to be hazardous.
EPA’s review of this petition included
consideration of the original listing
criteria and the additional factors
required by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984. See section
3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and
40 CFR 260.22(d)(1)–(4) (hereinafter all
sectional references are to 40 CFR
unless otherwise indicated). In making
the final delisting determination, EPA
evaluated the petitioned waste against
the listing criteria and factors cited in
§ 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this
review, EPA agrees with the petitioner
that the waste is nonhazardous with
respect to the original listing criteria. If
EPA had found, based on this review,
that the waste remained hazardous
based on the factors for which the waste
was originally listed, EPA would have
proposed to deny the petition. EPA
evaluated the waste with respect to
other factors or criteria to assess
whether there is a reasonable basis to
believe that such additional factors
could cause the waste to be hazardous.
EPA considered whether the waste is
acutely toxic, the concentration of the
constituents in the waste, their tendency
to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their
persistence in the environment once
released from the waste, plausible and
specific types of management of the
petitioned waste, the quantities of waste
generated, and waste variability. EPA
believes that the petitioned waste does
not meet the listing criteria and thus
should not be a listed waste. EPA’s final
decision to delist waste from Bayer’s
facility is based on the information
submitted in support of this rule,
including descriptions of the wastes and
analytical data from the Baytown, TX
facility.
E:\FR\FM\16MYR1.SGM
16MYR1
28276
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
C. What Are the Limits of This
Exclusion?
This exclusion applies to the waste
described in the petition only if the
requirements described in 40 CFR part
261, appendix IX, Table 2 and the
conditions contained herein are
satisfied.
D. How Will Bayer Manage the Waste, If
It Is Delisted?
Bayer will dispose of the spent carbon
in a Subtitle D landfill.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion
Effective?
This rule is effective May 16, 2006.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 amended section
3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6930(b)(1),
allows rules to become effective less
than six months after the rule is
published when the regulated
community does not need the six-month
period to come into compliance. That is
the case here because this rule reduces,
rather than increases, the existing
requirements for persons generating
hazardous waste. This reduction in
existing requirements also provides a
basis for making this rule effective
immediately, upon publication, under
the Administrative Procedure Act,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
F. How Does This Final Rule Affect
States?
Because EPA is issuing this exclusion
under the Federal RCRA delisting
program, only states subject to Federal
RCRA delisting provisions would be
affected. This would exclude states
which have received authorization from
EPA to make their own delisting
decisions.
EPA allows states to impose their own
non-RCRA regulatory requirements that
are more stringent than EPA’s
requirements, 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 (nonRCRA) programs) may regulate a
petitioner’s waste, EPA urges petitioners
to contact the State regulatory authority
to establish the status of their wastes
under the State law.
EPA has also authorized some states
(for example, Louisiana, Oklahoma,
Georgia, and Illinois) to administer a
RCRA delisting program in place of the
Federal program; that is, to make state
delisting decisions. Therefore, this
exclusion does not apply in those
authorized states unless that state makes
the rule part of its authorized program.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 May 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
If Bayer transports the petitioned waste
to or manages the waste in any state
with delisting authorization, Bayer must
obtain delisting authorization from that
state before it can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in the state.
II. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition?
A delisting petition is a request from
a generator to EPA, or another agency
with jurisdiction, to exclude or delist
from the RCRA list of hazardous waste,
certain wastes the generator believes
should not be considered hazardous
under RCRA.
B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To
Delist a Waste?
Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22, facilities
may petition EPA to remove their
wastes from hazardous waste regulation
by excluding them from the lists of
hazardous wastes contained in
§§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically,
§ 260.20 allows any person to petition
the Administrator to modify or revoke
any provision of 40 CFR parts 260
through 265 and 268. Section 260.22
provides generators the opportunity to
petition the Administrator to exclude a
waste from a particular generating
facility from the hazardous waste lists.
C. What Information Must the Generator
Supply?
Petitioners must provide sufficient
information to EPA to allow EPA to
determine that the waste to be excluded
does not meet any of the criteria under
which the waste was listed as a
hazardous waste. In addition, the
Administrator or his delegate must
determine, where he/she has a
reasonable basis to believe that factors
(including additional constituents) other
than those for which the waste was
listed could cause the waste to be a
hazardous waste and that such factors
do not warrant retaining the waste as a
hazardous waste.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What Waste Did Bayer Petition EPA
to Delist?
On September 26, 2003, Bayer
petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists
of hazardous waste contained in
§ 261.32, spent carbon generated from
its facility located in Baytown, Texas.
The waste falls under the classification
of a listed waste under § 261.30.
B. How Much Waste Did Bayer Propose
to Delist?
Specifically, in its petition, Bayer
requested that EPA grant a conditional
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
exclusion for 7,728 cubic yards per year
of the spent carbon.
C. How Did Bayer Sample and Analyze
the Waste Data in This Petition?
To support its petition, Bayer
submitted:
(1) Analytical results of the toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP) and total constituent analysis for
volatile and semivolatile organics,
pesticides, herbicides, dioxins/furans,
PCBs and metals for six spent carbon
samples;
(2) Analytical results from multiple
pH leaching of metals; and
(3) Descriptions of the waste water
treatment process and carbon
regeneration process.
IV. Public Comments Received on the
Proposed Exclusion
Who Submitted Comments on the
Proposed Rule?
There were no comments submitted
on the proposed rule.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review ‘‘ (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is
not of general applicability and
therefore is not a regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This
rule does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it
applies to a particular facility only.
Because this rule is of particular
applicability relating to a particular
facility, it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or
to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this
rule will affect only a particular facility,
it will not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as specified in
section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule
will affect only a particular facility, this
final rule does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule. Similarly, because this rule
will affect only a particular facility, this
final rule does not have tribal
E:\FR\FM\16MYR1.SGM
16MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule. This rule
also is not subject to Executive Order
13045, ‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866, and because the Agency
does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The
basis for this belief is that the Agency
used the DRAS program, which
considers health and safety risks to
infants and children, to calculate the
maximum allowable concentrations for
this rule. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. This rule does not involve
technical standards; thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’, (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule,
EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct. The Congressional
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule
may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a
rule report which includes a copy of the
rule to each House of the Congress and
to the Comptroller General of the United
States. Section 804 exempts from
section 801 the following types of rules:
(1) Rules of particular applicability; (2)
rules relating to agency management or
personnel; and (3) rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that
do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties, 5
U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to
submit a rule report regarding today’s
28277
action under section 801 because this is
a rule of particular applicability.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous
waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 3, 2006.
Carl E. Edlund,
P.E., Director, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division, Region 6.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is to be
amended as follows:
I
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
6922, and 6938.
2. In Table 2 of Appendix IX of part
261 add the following waste stream in
alphabetical order by facility to read as
follows:
I
Appendix IX to Part 261—Waste
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22
TABLE 2.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES
Address
Waste description
*
Bayer Material Science LLC ...
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Facility
*
Baytown, TX ...
*
*
*
*
*
Spent Carbon (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K027, K104, K111, and K112) generated at a
maximum rate of 7,728 cubic yards per calendar year after May 16, 2006.
For the exclusion to be valid, Bayer must implement a verification testing program that meets
the following Paragraphs:
(1) Delisting Levels:
All concentrations for those constituents must not exceed the maximum allowable concentrations in mg/l specified in this paragraph.
Spent Carbon Leachable Concentrations (mg/l): Antimony–0.251; Arsenic–0.385, Barium–
8.93; Beryllium–0.953; Cadmium–0.687; Chromium–5.0; Cobalt–2.75; Copper–128.0; Cyanide–1.65; Lead–5.0; Mercury–0.0294; Nickel–3.45; Selenium–0.266; Tin–2.75; Vanadium–
2.58; Zinc–34.2; Aldrin–0.0000482; Acetophenone–87.1; Aniline–2.82; Benzene–0.554;
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate–0.342; Benzyl alcohol–261; Butylbenzylphthalate–3.54; Chloroform–0.297; Di-n-octyl phthalate–0.00427; 2,4-Dinitrotoluene–0.0249; 2,6-Dinitrotoluene–
0.0249 Diphenylamine–1.43; 1,4-Dioxane–14.6; Di-n-butylphthalate–2.02; Kepone–
0.000373;
2-Nitrophenol–87.9;
N-Nitrodiphenylamine–3.28;
Phenol–52.2;
2,4Toluenediamine–0.00502; Toluene diisocyanate–0.001.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
(A) Waste classification as non-hazardous can not begin until compliance with the limits set in
paragraph (1) for spent carbon has occurred for two consecutive quarterly sampling events
and the reports have been approved by EPA.
(B) If constituent levels in any sample taken by Bayer exceed any of the delisting levels set in
paragraph (1) for the spent carbon, Bayer must do the following:
(i) notify EPA in accordance with paragraph (6) and
(ii) manage and dispose the spent carbon as hazardous waste generated under Subtitle C of
RCRA.
(3) Testing Requirements:
Upon this exclusion becoming final, Bayer must perform quarterly analytical testing by sampling and analyzing the spent carbon as follows:
(A) Quarterly Testing:
(i) Collect two representative composite samples of the spent carbon at quarterly intervals
after EPA grants the final exclusion. The first composite samples may be taken at any time
after EPA grants the final approval. Sampling should be performed in accordance with the
sampling plan approved by EPA in support of the exclusion.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 May 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16MYR1.SGM
16MYR1
28278
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Facility
Address
Waste description
(ii) Analyze the samples for all constituents listed in paragraph (1). Any composite sample
taken that exceeds the delisting levels listed in paragraph (1) for the spent carbon must be
disposed as hazardous waste in accordance with the applicable hazardous waste requirements.
(iii) Within thirty (30) days after taking its first quarterly sample, Bayer will report its first quarterly analytical test data to EPA. If levels of constituents measured in the samples of the
spent carbon do not exceed the levels set forth in paragraph (1) of this exclusion for two
consecutive quarters, Bayer can manage and dispose the non-hazardous spent carbon according to all applicable solid waste regulations.
(B) Annual Testing:
(i) If Bayer completes the quarterly testing specified in paragraph (3) above and no sample
contains a constituent at a level which exceeds the limits set forth in paragraph (1), Bayer
can begin annual testing as follows: Bayer must test two representative composite samples
of the spent carbon for all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at least once per calendar
year.
(ii) The samples for the annual testing shall be a representative composite sample according
to appropriate methods. As applicable to the method-defined parameters of concern, analyses requiring the use of SW–846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11
must be used without substitution. As applicable, the SW–846 methods might include Methods 0010, 0011, 0020, 0023A, 0030, 0031, 0040, 0050, 0051, 0060, 0061, 1010A, 1020B,
1110A, 1310B, 1311, 1312, 1320, 1330A, 9010C, 9012B, 9040C, 9045D, 9060A, 9070A
(uses EPA Method 1664, Rev. A), 9071B, and 9095B.
Methods must meet Performance Based Measurement System Criteria in which the Data
Quality Objectives are to demonstrate that samples of the Bayer spent carbon are representative for all constituents listed in paragraph (1).
(iii) The samples 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.
(iv) The annual testing report must include the total amount of waste in cubic yards disposed
during the calendar year.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions:
If Bayer significantly changes the process described in its petition or starts any process that
generates the waste that may or could affect the composition or type of waste generated
(by illustration, but not limitation, changes in equipment or operating conditions of the treatment process), it must notify EPA in writing and it may no longer handle the wastes generated from the new process as non-hazardous until the wastes meet the delisting levels
set in paragraph (1) and it has received written approval to do so from EPA.
Bayer must submit a modification to the petition complete with full sampling and analysis for
circumstances where the waste volume changes and/or additional waste codes are added
to the waste stream.
(5) Data Submittals:
Bayer must submit the information described below. If Bayer fails to submit the required data
within the specified time or maintain the required records on-site for the specified time,
EPA, at its discretion, will consider this sufficient basis to reopen the exclusion as described
in paragraph (6). Bayer must:
(A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph 3 to the Chief, Corrective Action and Waste
Minimization Section, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, Texas, 75202, within the time specified. All supporting data can be submitted on CD–ROM or some comparable electronic
media.
(B) Compile records of analytical data from paragraph (3), summarized, and maintained onsite for a minimum of five years.
(C) Furnish these records and data when either EPA or the State of Texas requests them for
inspection.
(D) Send along with all data a signed copy of the following certification statement, to attest to
the truth and accuracy of the data submitted:
‘‘Under civil and criminal penalty of law for the making or submission of false or fraudulent
statements or representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Federal Code,
which include, but may not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. 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 EPA in its sole discretion to be false, inaccurate or
incomplete, and upon conveyance of this fact to the company, I recognize and agree that
this exclusion of waste will be void as if it never had effect or to the extent directed by EPA
and that the company will be liable for any actions taken in contravention of the company’s
RCRA and CERCLA obligations premised upon the company’s reliance on the void exclusion.’’
(6) Reopener:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 May 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16MYR1.SGM
16MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
28279
TABLE 2.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
(A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste Bayer possesses or is otherwise made
aware of any environmental data (including but not limited to leachate data or ground water
monitoring data) or any other data relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent identified for the delisting verification testing is at a level higher than the delisting
level allowed by EPA in granting the petition, then the facility must report the data, in writing, to EPA within 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, Bayer must report the data, in writing, to EPA within 10 days of first
possessing or being made aware of that data.
(C) If Bayer fails to submit the information described in paragraphs (5),(6)(A) or (6)(B) or if
any other information is received from any source, EPA will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires action to protect human health and/or
the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other
appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment.
(D) If EPA determines that the reported information requires action, EPA will notify the facility
in writing of the actions it believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing the facility with an opportunity to present information explaining why the proposed
EPA action is not necessary. The facility shall have 10 days from the date of EPA’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), EPA will issue a final written determination describing
the actions that are necessary to protect human health and/or the environment. Any required action described in EPA’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless
EPA provides otherwise.
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 06–4514 Filed 5–15–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 578
[Docket No. NHTSA–05–24109; Notice 2]
RIN 2127–AJ83
Civil Penalties
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document amends
NHTSA’s regulation on civil penalties
by increasing the maximum civil
penalties for violations of the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as
amended (Vehicle Safety Act). This
action is taken pursuant to the Federal
Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation
Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by
the Debt Collection Improvement Act of
1996, which requires NHTSA to review
and, as warranted, adjust penalties
based on inflation at least every four
years. In addition, this document
codifies amendments to the penalty
provisions of the Vehicle Safety Act by
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 May 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
*
*
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) and
makes a technical correction to the text
of the agency’s penalty regulation.
DATES: This rule is effective on June 15,
2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Kido, Office of Chief Counsel,
NHTSA, telephone (202) 366–5263,
facsimile (202) 366–3820, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule
amends NHTSA’s regulations on civil
penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act,
49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. As explained
below, it makes four changes to 49 CFR
Part 578 Civil and Criminal Penalties.
These changes were proposed and
explained in our March 9, 2006 Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) at
71 FR 12156. There were no comments
on that notice.
First, this rule adjusts for inflation the
maximum available penalties codified at
49 CFR 578.6(a). In order to preserve the
remedial impact of civil penalties and to
foster compliance with the law, the
Federal Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation
Adjustment Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 2461
Notes, Pub. L. 101–410), as amended by
the Debt Collection Improvement Act of
1996, (Pub. L. 104–134) (referred to
collectively as the ‘‘Adjustment Act’’ or,
in context, the ‘‘Act’’), requires us and
other Federal agencies to regularly
adjust civil penalties for inflation.
Under the Adjustment Act, following an
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
initial adjustment that was capped by
the Act, these agencies must make
further adjustments, as warranted, to the
amounts of penalties in statutes they
administer at least once every four
years.
NHTSA is adjusting the maximum
penalty for a single violation of the
Vehicle Safety Act. The agency last
published a rule stating the maximum
civil penalty for a single violation or a
single violation per day under 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on November 14, 2000, 65
FR 68108. This rule incorporated
amendments to 49 U.S.C. 30165(a) in
the Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability, and Documentation
(TREAD) Act. Pub. L. 106–414, 114 Stat.
1800. In the TREAD Act, Congress set
the maximum penalty for a single
violation of the Vehicle Safety Act or a
regulation thereunder at $5,000. The
TREAD Act also set the maximum
penalty for a violation of 49 U.S.C.
30166 or a regulation thereunder at
$5,000 per violation per day. The
agency codified these amounts at 49
CFR 578.6(a)(1) and (a)(2), respectively.
In today’s rule, NHTSA is adjusting
these amounts from $5,000 to $6,000
based on the Adjustment Act, for the
reasons set forth in the NPRM.
Additionally, the agency is adjusting
the maximum penalty amounts for a
related series of violations of the
Vehicle Safety Act or a regulation
thereunder and for a related series of
E:\FR\FM\16MYR1.SGM
16MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 16, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28275-28279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4514]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-8169-5]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a petition
submitted by Bayer Material Science LLC (Bayer) to exclude (or delist)
a certain solid waste generated by its Baytown, TX plant from the lists
of hazardous wastes. This final rule responds to the petition submitted
by Bayer to delist K027, K104, K111, and K112 spent carbon generated
from the facility's waste water treatment plant.
After careful analysis and use of the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS), EPA has concluded the petitioned waste is not
hazardous waste. This exclusion applies to 7,728 cubic yards per year
of the spent carbon.
DATES: Effective Date: May 16, 2006.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this final rule is located at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202, and is available for
viewing in EPA's Freedom of Information Act review room on the 7th
floor from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for appointments. The reference number
for this docket is [R6-TXDEL-FY06-Bayer-Spent Carbon]. The public may
copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the first 100
pages and at a cost of $0.15 per page for additional copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Banipal, Section Chief of the
Corrective Action and Waste Minimization Section, Multimedia Planning
and Permitting Division (6PD-C), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202. For technical information concerning this notice,
contact Michelle Peace, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, (6PD-C),
Dallas, Texas 75202, at (214) 665-7430, or peace.michelle@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Action?
C. What Are the Limits of This exclusion?
D. How Will Bayer Manage the Waste, If It Is Delisted?
E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion Effective?
F. How Does this Final Rule Affect States?
II. Background
A. What Is a Delisting?
B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To Delist a Waste?
C. What Information Must the Generator Supply?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What Waste Did Bayer Petition EPA To Delist?
B. How Much Waste Did Bayer Propose To Delist?
C. How Did Bayer Sample and Analyze the Waste Data in This
Petition?
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
Who Submitted Comments on the Proposed Rule?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?
After evaluating the petition, EPA proposed, on February 14, 2006,
to exclude the waste from the lists of hazardous waste under 40 CFR
261.31 and 261.32 (see 71 FR 7704). EPA is finalizing the decision to
grant Bayer's delisting petition to have its spent carbon generated
from treating waste waters at the plant subject to certain continued
verification and monitoring conditions.
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Action?
Bayer's petition requests a delisting from the K027, K104, K111,
and K112, waste listings under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. Bayer does not
believe that the petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA
listed it. Bayer also believes no additional constituents or factors
could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA's review of this petition
included consideration of the original listing criteria and the
additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984. See section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR
260.22(d)(1)-(4) (hereinafter all sectional references are to 40 CFR
unless otherwise indicated). In making the final delisting
determination, 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, EPA agrees with the petitioner that the waste is
nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. If EPA had
found, based on this review, that the waste remained hazardous based on
the factors for which the waste was originally listed, EPA would have
proposed to deny the petition. EPA evaluated the waste with respect to
other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis
to believe that such additional factors could cause the waste to be
hazardous. EPA considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the
concentration of the constituents in the waste, their tendency to
migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once
released from the waste, plausible and specific types of management of
the petitioned waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste
variability. EPA believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the
listing criteria and thus should not be a listed waste. EPA's final
decision to delist waste from Bayer's facility is based on the
information submitted in support of this rule, including descriptions
of the wastes and analytical data from the Baytown, TX facility.
[[Page 28276]]
C. What Are the Limits of This Exclusion?
This exclusion applies to the waste described in the petition only
if the requirements described in 40 CFR part 261, appendix IX, Table 2
and the conditions contained herein are satisfied.
D. How Will Bayer Manage the Waste, If It Is Delisted?
Bayer will dispose of the spent carbon in a Subtitle D landfill.
E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion Effective?
This rule is effective May 16, 2006. The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6930(b)(1),
allows rules to become effective less than six months after the rule is
published when the regulated community does not need the six-month
period to come into compliance. That is the case here because this rule
reduces, rather than increases, the existing requirements for persons
generating hazardous waste. This reduction in existing requirements
also provides a basis for making this rule effective immediately, upon
publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d).
F. How Does This Final Rule Affect States?
Because EPA is issuing this exclusion under the Federal RCRA
delisting program, only states subject to Federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This would exclude states which have
received authorization from EPA to make their own delisting decisions.
EPA allows states to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory
requirements that are more stringent than EPA's requirements, under
section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929. These more stringent requirements
may include a provision that prohibits a Federally issued exclusion
from taking effect in the state. Because a dual system (that is, both
Federal (RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a
petitioner's waste, EPA urges petitioners to contact the State
regulatory authority to establish the status of their wastes under the
State law.
EPA has also authorized some states (for example, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, Georgia, and Illinois) to administer a RCRA delisting program
in place of the Federal program; that is, to make state delisting
decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized
states unless that state makes the rule part of its authorized program.
If Bayer transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any
state with delisting authorization, Bayer must obtain delisting
authorization from that state before it can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in the state.
II. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition?
A delisting petition is a request from a generator to EPA, or
another agency with jurisdiction, to exclude or delist from the RCRA
list of hazardous waste, certain wastes the generator believes should
not be considered hazardous under RCRA.
B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To Delist a Waste?
Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition EPA to
remove their wastes from hazardous waste regulation by excluding them
from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Sec. Sec. 261.31 and
261.32. Specifically, Sec. 260.20 allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of 40 CFR parts 260
through 265 and 268. Section 260.22 provides generators the opportunity
to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste from a particular
generating facility from the hazardous waste lists.
C. What Information Must the Generator Supply?
Petitioners must provide sufficient information to EPA to allow EPA
to determine that the waste to be excluded does not meet any of the
criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In
addition, the Administrator or his delegate must determine, where he/
she has a reasonable basis to believe that factors (including
additional constituents) other than those for which the waste was
listed could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste and that such
factors do not warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What Waste Did Bayer Petition EPA to Delist?
On September 26, 2003, Bayer petitioned EPA to exclude from the
lists of hazardous waste contained in Sec. 261.32, spent carbon
generated from its facility located in Baytown, Texas. The waste falls
under the classification of a listed waste under Sec. 261.30.
B. How Much Waste Did Bayer Propose to Delist?
Specifically, in its petition, Bayer requested that EPA grant a
conditional exclusion for 7,728 cubic yards per year of the spent
carbon.
C. How Did Bayer Sample and Analyze the Waste Data in This Petition?
To support its petition, Bayer submitted:
(1) Analytical results of the toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP) and total constituent analysis for volatile and
semivolatile organics, pesticides, herbicides, dioxins/furans, PCBs and
metals for six spent carbon samples;
(2) Analytical results from multiple pH leaching of metals; and
(3) Descriptions of the waste water treatment process and carbon
regeneration process.
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
Who Submitted Comments on the Proposed Rule?
There were no comments submitted on the proposed rule.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review ``
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general
applicability and therefore is not a regulatory action subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it
applies to a particular facility only. Because this rule is of
particular applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not
subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202, 204, and
205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as specified in
section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule will affect only a particular
facility, this final rule does not have federalism implications. It
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule. Similarly, because this rule will affect only a
particular facility, this final rule does not have tribal
[[Page 28277]]
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. This
rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as
defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have
reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by
this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for
this belief is that the Agency used the DRAS program, which considers
health and safety risks to infants and children, to calculate the
maximum allowable concentrations for this rule. This rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866. This rule does not involve technical
standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform'', (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule,
EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C.
801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take
effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report
which includes a copy of the rule to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804 exempts from
section 801 the following types of rules: (1) Rules of particular
applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel;
and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do
not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency
parties, 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report
regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of
particular applicability.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 3, 2006.
Carl E. Edlund,
P.E., Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Region 6.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is to be
amended as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
0
2. In Table 2 of Appendix IX of part 261 add the following waste stream
in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Waste Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 2.--Waste Excluded From Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Bayer Material Science LLC...................... Baytown, TX.................. Spent Carbon (EPA Hazardous
Waste Nos. K027, K104, K111,
and K112) generated at a
maximum rate of 7,728 cubic
yards per calendar year after
May 16, 2006.
For the exclusion to be valid,
Bayer must implement a
verification testing program
that meets the following
Paragraphs:
(1) Delisting Levels:
All concentrations for those
constituents must not exceed
the maximum allowable
concentrations in mg/l
specified in this paragraph.
Spent Carbon Leachable
Concentrations (mg/l):
Antimony-0.251; Arsenic-0.385,
Barium-8.93; Beryllium-0.953;
Cadmium-0.687; Chromium-5.0;
Cobalt-2.75; Copper-128.0;
Cyanide-1.65; Lead-5.0;
Mercury-0.0294; Nickel-3.45;
Selenium-0.266; Tin-2.75;
Vanadium-2.58; Zinc-34.2;
Aldrin-0.0000482; Acetophenone-
87.1; Aniline-2.82; Benzene-
0.554; Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate-0.342;
Benzyl alcohol-261;
Butylbenzylphthalate-3.54;
Chloroform-0.297; Di-n-octyl
phthalate-0.00427; 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene-0.0249; 2,6-
Dinitrotoluene-0.0249
Diphenylamine-1.43; 1,4-
Dioxane-14.6; Di-n-
butylphthalate-2.02; Kepone-
0.000373; 2-Nitrophenol-87.9;
N-Nitrodiphenylamine-3.28;
Phenol-52.2; 2,4-
Toluenediamine-0.00502;
Toluene diisocyanate-0.001.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
(A) Waste classification as non-
hazardous can not begin until
compliance with the limits set
in paragraph (1) for spent
carbon has occurred for two
consecutive quarterly sampling
events and the reports have
been approved by EPA.
(B) If constituent levels in
any sample taken by Bayer
exceed any of the delisting
levels set in paragraph (1)
for the spent carbon, Bayer
must do the following:
(i) notify EPA in accordance
with paragraph (6) and
(ii) manage and dispose the
spent carbon as hazardous
waste generated under Subtitle
C of RCRA.
(3) Testing Requirements:
Upon this exclusion becoming
final, Bayer must perform
quarterly analytical testing
by sampling and analyzing the
spent carbon as follows:
(A) Quarterly Testing:
(i) Collect two representative
composite samples of the spent
carbon at quarterly intervals
after EPA grants the final
exclusion. The first composite
samples may be taken at any
time after EPA grants the
final approval. Sampling
should be performed in
accordance with the sampling
plan approved by EPA in
support of the exclusion.
[[Page 28278]]
(ii) Analyze the samples for
all constituents listed in
paragraph (1). Any composite
sample taken that exceeds the
delisting levels listed in
paragraph (1) for the spent
carbon must be disposed as
hazardous waste in accordance
with the applicable hazardous
waste requirements.
(iii) Within thirty (30) days
after taking its first
quarterly sample, Bayer will
report its first quarterly
analytical test data to EPA.
If levels of constituents
measured in the samples of the
spent carbon do not exceed the
levels set forth in paragraph
(1) of this exclusion for two
consecutive quarters, Bayer
can manage and dispose the non-
hazardous spent carbon
according to all applicable
solid waste regulations.
(B) Annual Testing:
(i) If Bayer completes the
quarterly testing specified in
paragraph (3) above and no
sample contains a constituent
at a level which exceeds the
limits set forth in paragraph
(1), Bayer can begin annual
testing as follows: Bayer must
test two representative
composite samples of the spent
carbon for all constituents
listed in paragraph (1) at
least once per calendar year.
(ii) The samples for the annual
testing shall be a
representative composite
sample according to
appropriate methods. As
applicable to the method-
defined parameters of concern,
analyses requiring the use of
SW-846 methods incorporated by
reference in 40 CFR 260.11
must be used without
substitution. As applicable,
the SW-846 methods might
include Methods 0010, 0011,
0020, 0023A, 0030, 0031, 0040,
0050, 0051, 0060, 0061, 1010A,
1020B, 1110A, 1310B, 1311,
1312, 1320, 1330A, 9010C,
9012B, 9040C, 9045D, 9060A,
9070A (uses EPA Method 1664,
Rev. A), 9071B, and 9095B.
Methods must meet Performance
Based Measurement System
Criteria in which the Data
Quality Objectives are to
demonstrate that samples of
the Bayer spent carbon are
representative for all
constituents listed in
paragraph (1).
(iii) The samples 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.
(iv) The annual testing report
must include the total amount
of waste in cubic yards
disposed during the calendar
year.
(4) Changes in Operating
Conditions:
If Bayer significantly changes
the process described in its
petition or starts any process
that generates the waste that
may or could affect the
composition or type of waste
generated (by illustration,
but not limitation, changes in
equipment or operating
conditions of the treatment
process), it must notify EPA
in writing and it may no
longer handle the wastes
generated from the new process
as non-hazardous until the
wastes meet the delisting
levels set in paragraph (1)
and it has received written
approval to do so from EPA.
Bayer must submit a
modification to the petition
complete with full sampling
and analysis for circumstances
where the waste volume changes
and/or additional waste codes
are added to the waste stream.
(5) Data Submittals:
Bayer must submit the
information described below.
If Bayer fails to submit the
required data within the
specified time or maintain the
required records on-site for
the specified time, EPA, at
its discretion, will consider
this sufficient basis to
reopen the exclusion as
described in paragraph (6).
Bayer must:
(A) Submit the data obtained
through paragraph 3 to the
Chief, Corrective Action and
Waste Minimization Section,
Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division, U. S.
Environmental Protection
Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross
Ave., Dallas, Texas, 75202,
within the time specified. All
supporting data can be
submitted on CD-ROM or some
comparable electronic media.
(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 EPA or the
State of Texas requests them
for inspection.
(D) Send along with all data a
signed copy of the following
certification statement, to
attest to the truth and
accuracy of the data
submitted:
``Under civil and criminal
penalty of law for the making
or submission of false or
fraudulent statements or
representations (pursuant to
the applicable provisions of
the Federal Code, which
include, but may not be
limited to, 18 U.S.C. 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 EPA in its sole
discretion to be false,
inaccurate or incomplete, and
upon conveyance of this fact
to the company, I recognize
and agree that this exclusion
of waste will be void as if it
never had effect or to the
extent directed by EPA and
that the company will be
liable for any actions taken
in contravention of the
company's RCRA and CERCLA
obligations premised upon the
company's reliance on the void
exclusion.''
(6) Reopener:
[[Page 28279]]
(A) If, anytime after disposal
of the delisted waste Bayer
possesses or is otherwise made
aware of any environmental
data (including but not
limited to leachate data or
ground water monitoring data)
or any other data relevant to
the delisted waste indicating
that any constituent
identified for the delisting
verification testing is at a
level higher than the
delisting level allowed by EPA
in granting the petition, then
the facility must report the
data, in writing, to EPA
within 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,
Bayer must report the data, in
writing, to EPA within 10 days
of first possessing or being
made aware of that data.
(C) If Bayer fails to submit
the information described in
paragraphs (5),(6)(A) or
(6)(B) or if any other
information is received from
any source, EPA will make a
preliminary determination as
to whether the reported
information requires action to
protect human health and/or
the environment. Further
action may include suspending,
or revoking the exclusion, or
other appropriate response
necessary to protect human
health and the environment.
(D) If EPA determines that the
reported information requires
action, EPA will notify the
facility in writing of the
actions it believes are
necessary to protect human
health and the environment.
The notice shall include a
statement of the proposed
action and a statement
providing the facility with an
opportunity to present
information explaining why the
proposed EPA action is not
necessary. The facility shall
have 10 days from the date of
EPA'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), EPA will issue a final
written determination
describing the actions that
are necessary to protect human
health and/or the environment.
Any required action described
in EPA's determination shall
become effective immediately,
unless EPA provides otherwise.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 06-4514 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
