Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion, 4645-4649 [E7-1618]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
4645
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 21 / Thursday, February 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by April 2, 2007.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects
Gasoline, Glass and glass products,
Graphic arts industry, Household
appliances, Insulation,
Intergovernmental relations, Iron, Lead,
Lime, Metallic and nonmetallic mineral
processing plants, Metals, Motor
vehicles, Natural gas, Nitric acid plants,
Nitrogen dioxide, Paper and paper
products industry, Particulate matter,
Paving and roofing materials,
Petroleum, Phosphate, Plastics materials
and synthetics, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sewage
disposal, Steel, Sulfur oxides, Tires,
Urethane, Vinyl, Waste treatment and
disposal, Zinc.
§ 52.2352
Dated: January 22, 2007.
Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
I
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
40 CFR Part 60
PART 60—[AMENDED]
Authority: 42 U.S.C 7401, et seq.
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
Subpart A—General Provisions
4. In § 60.4(c), amend the table
entitled ‘‘Delegation Status of New
Source Performance Standards [(NSPS)
for Region VIII]’’ by revising the entries
for subpart ‘‘AAAA’’ and ‘‘CCCC’’ to
read 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.
Air pollution control, Aluminum,
Ammonium sulfate plants, Beverages,
Carbon monoxide, Cement industry,
Coal, Copper, Dry cleaners, Electric
power plants, Fertilizers, Fluoride,
*
*
*
*
(e) Utah Administrative Code (UAC)
rule R307–102–3, Administrative
Procedures and Hearings, and R307–
414–3, Request for Review, are removed
from Utah’s approved State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These
provisions are not required by the CAA
and are, therefore, not required to be in
Utah’s SIP. These provisions were last
approved in 40 CFR
52.2320(c)(59)(i)(A).
3. The authority citation for part 60
continues to read as follows:
I
40 CFR Part 52
Change to approved plan.
*
Subpart TT—Utah
§ 60.4
2. Section 52.2352 is amended by
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
*
I
Addresses.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
DELEGATION STATUS OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
[(NSPS) for region VIII]
Subpart
CO
MT
ND
*
*
*
*
AAAA-Small Municipal Waste Combustors ......................................................................
CCCC-Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units ..................................
*
............
............
(*)
(*)
(*)
(*)
SD
UT
............
............
(*)
(*)
*
WY
*
(*)
(*)
(*) Indicates approval of State regulation.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E7–1619 Filed 1–31–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R02–RCRA–2006–0804; FRL–8275–4]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (also, ‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the Agency’’ or
‘‘we’’) in this preamble is granting a
petition submitted by General Electric
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:01 Jan 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
(GE), King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, to
exclude (or delist), on a one-time basis,
certain solid wastes that have been
deposited and/or accumulated in two
on-site drying beds and two on-site
basins at GE’s RCA del Caribe facility in
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico from the lists
of hazardous wastes contained in the
regulations. These drying beds and
basins were used exclusively for
disposal of its chemical etching
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)
sludge.
This action is specific to the RCA del
Caribe site, bears no precedential effect
on other delistings and conditionally
excludes the petitioned waste from the
list of hazardous wastes only if the
waste is disposed of in a Subtitle D
landfill which is permitted, licensed, or
registered by a State or Commonwealth
to manage industrial solid waste. The
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
exclusion was proposed on March 19,
2004.
DATES:
Effective Date: February 1, 2007.
EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R02–RCRA–2006–0804. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the RCRA Programs Branch, Division of
Environmental Planning and Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\01FER1.SGM
01FER1
4646
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 21 / Thursday, February 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York,
New York 10007–1866, and are
available for viewing from 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. Call Ernst J. Jabouin at
(212) 637–4104 for appointments. The
public may copy material from the
regulatory docket at $0.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general and technical information about
this final rule, contact Ernst Jabouin,
RCRA Program Branch (2DEPP–RPB),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York,
New York 10007–1866 or call (212)
637–4104.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition, and What
Does It Require of Petitioner?
B. What Regulations Allow a Waste To Be
Delisted?
II. GE’s Delisting Petition
A. What Wastes Did GE Petition the EPA
To Delist?
B. What Information Must the Generator
Supply?
C. What Information Did GE Submit To
Support This Petition?
III. Public Comments Received on the
Proposed Exclusion
A. Who Submitted Comments on the
Proposed Rule
B. Comments Received and Responses
From EPA
IV. EPA’s Evaluation and Final Rule
A. What Decision Is EPA Finalizing and
Why?
B. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion?
C. When Is the Delisting Effective?
D. How Does This Action Affect the States?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
I. Background
A. 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 40 CFR 260.22, a
petitioner must prove that the waste
does not exhibit any of the hazardous
waste characteristics (ignitability,
reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and
present sufficient information for the
EPA to decide whether factors other
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:01 Jan 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
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.
B. What Regulations Allow a Waste To
Be Delisted?
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, a
generator may petition the EPA to
remove its waste from hazardous waste
control by excluding it from the lists of
hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR
261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, 40 CFR
260.20 allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any
provision of parts 260 through 266, 268,
and 273 of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. 40 CFR 260.22
provides a generator the opportunity to
petition the Administrator to exclude a
waste on a ‘‘generator specific’’ basis
from the hazardous waste lists.
II. GE’s Delisting Petition
A. What Wastes Did GE Petition the EPA
To Delist?
On November 20, 1997, GE petitioned
EPA Region 2 to exclude an estimated
volume of hazardous wastes ranging
from 5,000 to 15,000 cubic yards from
the list of hazardous wastes contained
in 40 CFR 261.31. These wastes were
generated and disposed of at GE’s
facility in Barceloneta, PR, formerly
known as the RCA del Caribe facility.
This facility was on EPA’s National
Priority List and was the subject of a
Superfund Remedial Investigation,
Feasibility Study and Record of
Decision. The wastes are described in
GE’s petition as EPA Hazardous Waste
Number F006 wastewater treatment
sludge that was generated from
chemical etching operation and
accumulated in two drying beds and
two basins where the sludge mixed with
soil. F006 is defined as ‘‘Wastewater
treatment sludges from electroplating
operations except from the following
processes: (1) Sulfuric acid anodizing of
aluminum; (2) tin plating on carbon
steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated basis)
on carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zincaluminum steel; (5) cleaning/stripping
associated with tin, zinc and aluminum
plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical
etching and milling of aluminum.’’ The
constituents of concern for which F006
is listed are cadmium, hexavalent
chromium, nickel and complexed
cyanide.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
B. What Information Must the Generator
Supply?
A generator must provide sufficient
information to allow the EPA to
determine that the waste does not meet
any of the criteria for which it was listed
as a hazardous waste. In addition, where
there is a reasonable basis to believe that
factors other than those for which the
waste was listed (including additional
constituents) could cause the waste to
be hazardous, the Administrator must
determine that such factors do not
warrant retaining the waste as
hazardous.
C. What Information Did GE Submit To
Support This Petition?
To support its petition, GE submitted
(1) Descriptions and schematic diagrams
of its manufacturing and wastewater
treatment processes, including historical
information on past waste generation
and management practices; (2) detailed
chemical and physical analysis of the
sludge; and (3) environmental
monitoring data from past and recent
studies of the facility, including
groundwater data from wells located
around the two drying beds and two
basins. GE also submitted a signed
certification of accuracy and
responsibility statement set forth in 40
CFR 260.22(i)(12). By this certification,
GE attests that all submitted information
is true, accurate and complete.
III. Public Comments Received on the
Proposed Exclusion
A. Who Submitted Comments on the
Proposed Rule
The EPA received public comments
on the proposed notice published on
March 19, 2004 from General Electric
Company, King of Prussia, PA (GE), the
petitioner, and by postcard from an
individual in New Jersey.
B. Comments Received and Responses
From EPA
Comment: GE stated that the in-place
verification sampling for the petitioned
waste should not be required since: (1)
GE met the criteria for waste
characterization with prior sampling
and EPA approved the delisting based
on the prior sampling; (2) GE filed a
signed certification of accuracy and
responsibility statement pursuant to 40
CFR 260.22(i)(12); (3) conditions at the
facility did not change in a manner that
would suggest that the petitioned
waste’s characteristics have changed
since the prior sampling was conducted;
(4) the sampling EPA included in the
proposed rule was nearly identical to
the sampling that GE had already
conducted, and which EPA previously
E:\FR\FM\01FER1.SGM
01FER1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 21 / Thursday, February 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
approved as a representative sampling
protocol for the petitioned waste, and
(5) EPA correspondence and guidance
did not support the need for the
verification sampling that was listed in
the proposed rule.
Response: EPA agrees that, as a ‘‘onetime’’ standard exclusion, the previous
waste characterization is sufficient and
that no in-place verification sampling
needs to be performed. Under a closure
plan, EPA has required post-excavation
sampling by GE to show that the sludge
and sludge mixed with soil have been
removed and there is no waste
remaining in the units at the facility.
Comment: GE stated that the Final
Rule should be based upon a cumulative
risk analysis, and specific delisting
levels for individual constituents should
not be included in the Final Rule.
Response: EPA believes it is not
necessary to address this comment since
GE’s wastes passed both cumulative risk
analysis and specific delisting levels for
individual constituents. EPA also agrees
that, for a ‘‘one-time’’ standard
exclusion, the Agency does not need to
report delisting levels in the final rule.
Comment: GE stated that EPA should
reevaluate the individual delisting
levels for arsenic for three reasons: (1)
Arsenic was not used in the
manufacturing process and should be
regarded as a background constituent
that is not subject to regulation; (2) EPA
has considered the presence of naturally
occurring arsenic and has acknowledged
that delisting levels for arsenic should
be calculated based on the point-ofexposure (POE) concentration allowed
by the Maximum Concentration Limit
(MCL); and (3) since the individual
delisting levels are directly related to
the amount of waste being delisted, EPA
inappropriately used the total amount of
waste (15,000 cu. yards) in the Delisting
Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) to
calculate the individual delisting level
for arsenic, rather than the amount of
waste petitioned to be delisted from the
basins only. As arsenic found in the
drying beds and basins is likely due to
the inadvertent mixing of native soil
with the sludge, EPA should have
excluded the volume of material outside
the drying beds and basins entirely.
Response: GE’s wastes passed the
arsenic level identified as the delisting
level in the proposed rule. As a result,
EPA believes it is not necessary to
address these comments.
Comment: The proposed rule
inappropriately included a statement
that the ‘‘exclusion does not change the
regulatory status of the drying beds and
on-site basins at the facility in
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico where the
waste has been disposed.’’ This
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:01 Jan 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
4647
statement is unnecessary as it is
immaterial to the Rule being proposed,
namely whether the petitioned waste
should be excluded. GE has previously
corresponded with EPA regarding the
regulatory status of the drying beds and
basins, and expects that EPA will
address that issue in a separate context.
Since the comment is immaterial to the
Proposed Rule, it should be removed
from the Final Rule.
Response: EPA is not including this
statement in the final rule as its
inclusion is not critical in the particular
circumstances of this site. GE has
submitted a plan entitled ‘‘Clean
Closure Plan for Waste Units—Former
RCA Del Caribe Facility’’ (the ‘‘Plan’’),
which EPA believes will achieve clean
closure of the units.
Comment: EPA must do independent
tests. GE polluted the Hudson River
horribly so to rely on this company’s
representation on what is hazardous and
what is not seems ludicrous. They have
polluted before! GE prefers to spend its
money on Jack Welch not being careful
on the earth! The testing listed seems far
too little to be acceptable. Page 5 details
what the waste is NOT FROM rather
than focusing on where the waste is
FROM! Public is NOT being told exactly
what origin/processes are involved. Is
this withholding of information
deliberate? Chromium is extremely
TOXIC! I recommend holding GE to
much stricter standards.
Response: The waste is F006
wastewater treatment sludge that was
generated from chemical etching
operation. The tests of the waste
conducted by GE have been
independently validated by
independent validators. Also, as stated
above in paragraph II.C., GE has signed
a certification of accuracy and
responsibility statement set forth in 40
CFR 260.22(i)(12). By this certification,
GE attests that all submitted information
is true, accurate and complete. GE
analyzed the wastes and groundwater
for arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, hexavalent chromium, lead,
mercury, nickel, selenium, and silver;
for Appendix IX Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs); and, for Appendix
IX Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
(SVOCs). Characteristic testing of soil
and sludge samples also included
analysis of ignitability and corrosivity.
EPA believes appropriate standards
have been satisfied.
ranging from 5,000 to 15,000 cubic
yards of WWTP sludge resulting from
the chemical etching operation at its
facility in RCA del Caribe in
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico.
GE petitioned EPA to exclude, or
delist, the WWTP sludge because GE
believes that the petitioned waste does
not meet the criteria for which it was
listed and that there are no additional
constituents or factors which could
cause the waste to be hazardous. Review
of this petition included consideration
of the original listing criteria, as well as
the additional factors required by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See
section 222 of HSWA, 42 United States
Code (U.S.C.) 6921(f), and 40 CFR
260.22.
On March 19, 2004, EPA proposed to
exclude or delist GE’s WWTP sludge
resulting from the chemical etching
operation from the list of hazardous
wastes in 40 CFR 261.31 and accepted
public comment on the proposed rule
(69 FR 12995). EPA considered all
comments received, and we believe that
this waste should be excluded from
hazardous waste control.
IV. EPA’s Evaluation and Final Rule
D. How Does This Action Affect the
States or the Commonwealth?
Because EPA is issuing today’s
exclusion under the Federal RCRA
delisting program, only States or
Commonwealth subject to Federal
A. What Decision Is EPA Finalizing and
Why?
Today the EPA is finalizing an
exclusion for an estimated volume
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
B. What Are the Terms of This
Exclusion?
GE must dispose of the WWTP sludge
resulting from the chemical etching
operation at its facility in Barceloneta,
PR, formerly known as the RCA del
Caribe facility, in a Subtitle D landfill
which is permitted, licensed, or
registered by a State or Commonwealth
to manage industrial waste. Any amount
of WWTP sludge which is in excess of
15,000 cubic yards is not considered
delisted under this exclusion. This
exclusion is effective only if all
conditions contained in today’s rule are
satisfied.
C. When Is the Delisting Effective?
This rule is effective February 1, 2007.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 amended section
3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become
effective in less than six months when
the regulated community does not need
the six-month period to come into
compliance. This rule reduces rather
than increases the existing requirements
and, therefore, is effective immediately
upon publication under the
Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
E:\FR\FM\01FER1.SGM
01FER1
4648
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 21 / Thursday, February 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
RCRA delisting provisions would be
affected. This would exclude States or
Commonwealth who have received
authorization from the EPA to make
their own delisting decisions.
EPA allows the States or the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 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 or Commonwealth. Because a
dual system (that is, both Federal
(RCRA) and State or Commonwealth
(non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a
petitioner’s waste, the EPA urges
petitioner to contact the pertinent State
or the Commonwealth regulatory
authority to establish the status of its
wastes under the State or
Commonwealth law.
EPA has also authorized some States
to administer a delisting program in
place of the federal program to make
State delisting decisions. Therefore, this
exclusion does not apply in those
authorized States. If GE transports the
petitioned waste to or manages the
waste in any State with delisting
authorization, GE must obtain a
delisting from that State before it can
manage the waste as nonhazardous in
the State. Delisting petitions approved
by the EPA Administrator under 40 CFR
260.22 are effective only after the final
rule has been published in the Federal
Register.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:01 Jan 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
Authority: Section 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f).
Dated: January 26, 2007.
Walter Mugdan,
Director, Division of Environmental Planning
and Protection, Region 2.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is 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.
40 CFR Part 261, Appendix IX
2. Table 1 of appendix IX of part 261
is amended by adding the following
entry in alphabetical order by facility to
read as follows:
I
Appendix IX to Part 261—Waste
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22
E:\FR\FM\01FER1.SGM
01FER1
4649
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 21 / Thursday, February 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
Facility
Address
Waste description
*
*
GE’s Former RCA del Caribe ...........
*
Barceloneta, PR ........
*
*
*
*
Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludges from chemical etching operation
(EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006) and contaminated soil mixed with sludge.
This is a one-time exclusion for a range of 5,000 to 15,000 cubic yards of
WWTP sludge on condition of disposal in a Subtitle D landfill. This exclusion
was published on February 1, 2007. 1. Reopener Language—(a) If, anytime
after disposal of the delisted waste, GE discovers that any condition or assumption related to the characterization of the excluded waste which was used
in the evaluation of the petition or that was predicted through modeling is not
as reported in the petition, then GE must report any information relevant to
that condition or assumption, in writing, to the Director of the Division of Environmental Planning and Protection in Region 2 within 10 days of first of discovering that information. (b) Upon receiving information described in paragraph (a) of this section, regardless of its source, the Director will determine
whether the reported condition requires further action. Further action may include repealing the exclusion, modifying the exclusion, or other appropriate action deemed necessary to protect human health or the environment.
2. Notifications—GE must provide a one-time written notification to any State or
Commonwealth Regulatory Agency in any State or Commonwealth to which or
through which the waste described above will be transported for disposal at
least 60 days prior to the commencement of such activities. Failure to provide
such a notification will result in a violation of the waste exclusion and a possible revocation of the decision.
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E7–1618 Filed 1–31–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 511, 516, 532, 538, 546,
and 552
[Amendment 2007–01; GSAR Case 2006–
G522; Change 18 Docket 2007–0003,
Sequence 1]
RIN 3090–AI32
General Services Acquisition
Regulation; Federal Supply Schedule
Contracts-Recovery Purchasing by
State and Local Governments Through
Federal Supply Schedules
Office of the Chief Acquisition
Officer, Contract Policy Division,
General Services Administration (GSA).
ACTION: Interim rule with request for
comments.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The General Services
Administration (GSA) is amending the
General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to
implement Section 833 of the John
Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Pub. L. 109–
364). Section 833 amends 40 U.S.C. 502
to authorize the Administrator of
General Services to provide to State and
local governments the use of Federal
Supply Schedules of the GSA for
purchase of products and services to be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:01 Jan 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
*
*
used to facilitate recovery from a major
disaster, terrorism or nuclear, biological,
chemical, or radiological attack.
DATES: Effective Date: February 1, 2007.
Comment Date: Interested parties
should submit comments in writing to
the Regulatory Secretariat at the address
shown below on or before April 2, 2007
to be considered in the formulation of
a final rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
identified by Amendment 2007–01,
GSAR case 2006–G522, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Search for any
document by first selecting the proper
document types and selecting ‘‘General
Services Administration’’ as the agency
of choice. At the ‘‘Keyword’’ prompt,
type in the GSAR case number (for
example, GSAR case 2006–G522) and
click on the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Please
include any personal and/or business
information inside the document.
You may also search for any
document by clicking on the ‘‘Advanced
search/document search’’ tab at the top
of the screen, selecting from the agency
field ‘‘General Services
Administration,’’ and typing the GSAR
case number in the keyword field.
Select the ‘‘Submit’’ button.
• Fax: 202–501–4067.
• Mail: General Services
Administration, Regulatory Secretariat
(VIR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035,
ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington,
DC 20405.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
Instructions: Please submit comments
only and cite GSAR case 2006–G522, in
all correspondence related to this case.
All comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal and/or business confidential
information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
William Clark, Procurement Analyst, at
(202) 219–1813, for clarification of
content. Please cite Amendment 2007–
01, GSAR case 2006–G522. For
information pertaining to status or
publication schedules, contact the
Regulatory Secretariat at (202) 501–
4755.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The Federal Supply Schedule
Program, which is directed and
managed by GSA, is designed to provide
Federal agencies with a simplified
process of acquiring commonly used
commercial supplies and services at
prices associated with volume buying.
Ordering activities conduct streamlined
competitions among a number of
schedule contractors, issue orders
directly with the selected contractor,
and administer orders.
This interim rule amends GSAR Parts
511, 516, 532, 538, 546, and 552 to
implement Section 833 of the John
Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Pub. L. 109–
364). Section 833 amends 40 U.S.C. 502
E:\FR\FM\01FER1.SGM
01FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 21 (Thursday, February 1, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4645-4649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-1618]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R02-RCRA-2006-0804; FRL-8275-4]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (also, ``EPA'' or ``the
Agency'' or ``we'') in this preamble is granting a petition submitted
by General Electric (GE), King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, to exclude (or
delist), on a one-time basis, certain solid wastes that have been
deposited and/or accumulated in two on-site drying beds and two on-site
basins at GE's RCA del Caribe facility in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico from
the lists of hazardous wastes contained in the regulations. These
drying beds and basins were used exclusively for disposal of its
chemical etching wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludge.
This action is specific to the RCA del Caribe site, bears no
precedential effect on other delistings and conditionally excludes the
petitioned waste from the list of hazardous wastes only if the waste is
disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or
registered by a State or Commonwealth to manage industrial solid waste.
The exclusion was proposed on March 19, 2004.
DATES: Effective Date: February 1, 2007.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R02-RCRA-2006-0804. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the RCRA Programs Branch,
Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,
[[Page 4646]]
Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, and are
available for viewing from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. Call Ernst J. Jabouin at (212) 637-4104 for
appointments. The public may copy material from the regulatory docket
at $0.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general and technical information
about this final rule, contact Ernst Jabouin, RCRA Program Branch
(2DEPP-RPB), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290
Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866 or call (212) 637-4104.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition, and What Does It Require of
Petitioner?
B. What Regulations Allow a Waste To Be Delisted?
II. GE's Delisting Petition
A. What Wastes Did GE Petition the EPA To Delist?
B. What Information Must the Generator Supply?
C. What Information Did GE Submit To Support This Petition?
III. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Who Submitted Comments on the Proposed Rule
B. Comments Received and Responses From EPA
IV. EPA's Evaluation and Final Rule
A. What Decision Is EPA Finalizing and Why?
B. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion?
C. When Is the Delisting Effective?
D. How Does This Action Affect the States?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. 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 40 CFR 260.22, a petitioner must prove that the
waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics
(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.
B. What Regulations Allow a Waste To Be Delisted?
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, a generator may petition the EPA to
remove its waste from hazardous waste control by excluding it from the
lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32.
Specifically, 40 CFR 260.20 allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through
266, 268, and 273 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 40
CFR 260.22 provides a generator the opportunity to petition the
Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator specific'' basis from
the hazardous waste lists.
II. GE's Delisting Petition
A. What Wastes Did GE Petition the EPA To Delist?
On November 20, 1997, GE petitioned EPA Region 2 to exclude an
estimated volume of hazardous wastes ranging from 5,000 to 15,000 cubic
yards from the list of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31.
These wastes were generated and disposed of at GE's facility in
Barceloneta, PR, formerly known as the RCA del Caribe facility. This
facility was on EPA's National Priority List and was the subject of a
Superfund Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study and Record of
Decision. The wastes are described in GE's petition as EPA Hazardous
Waste Number F006 wastewater treatment sludge that was generated from
chemical etching operation and accumulated in two drying beds and two
basins where the sludge mixed with soil. F006 is defined as
``Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations except
from the following processes: (1) Sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum;
(2) tin plating on carbon steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on
carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-aluminum steel; (5) cleaning/
stripping associated with tin, zinc and aluminum plating on carbon
steel; and (6) chemical etching and milling of aluminum.'' The
constituents of concern for which F006 is listed are cadmium,
hexavalent chromium, nickel and complexed cyanide.
B. What Information Must the Generator Supply?
A generator must provide sufficient information to allow the EPA to
determine that the waste does not meet any of the criteria for which it
was listed as a hazardous waste. In addition, where there is a
reasonable basis to believe that factors other than those for which the
waste was listed (including additional constituents) could cause the
waste to be hazardous, the Administrator must determine that such
factors do not warrant retaining the waste as hazardous.
C. What Information Did GE Submit To Support This Petition?
To support its petition, GE submitted (1) Descriptions and
schematic diagrams of its manufacturing and wastewater treatment
processes, including historical information on past waste generation
and management practices; (2) detailed chemical and physical analysis
of the sludge; and (3) environmental monitoring data from past and
recent studies of the facility, including groundwater data from wells
located around the two drying beds and two basins. GE also submitted a
signed certification of accuracy and responsibility statement set forth
in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12). By this certification, GE attests that all
submitted information is true, accurate and complete.
III. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Who Submitted Comments on the Proposed Rule
The EPA received public comments on the proposed notice published
on March 19, 2004 from General Electric Company, King of Prussia, PA
(GE), the petitioner, and by postcard from an individual in New Jersey.
B. Comments Received and Responses From EPA
Comment: GE stated that the in-place verification sampling for the
petitioned waste should not be required since: (1) GE met the criteria
for waste characterization with prior sampling and EPA approved the
delisting based on the prior sampling; (2) GE filed a signed
certification of accuracy and responsibility statement pursuant to 40
CFR 260.22(i)(12); (3) conditions at the facility did not change in a
manner that would suggest that the petitioned waste's characteristics
have changed since the prior sampling was conducted; (4) the sampling
EPA included in the proposed rule was nearly identical to the sampling
that GE had already conducted, and which EPA previously
[[Page 4647]]
approved as a representative sampling protocol for the petitioned
waste, and (5) EPA correspondence and guidance did not support the need
for the verification sampling that was listed in the proposed rule.
Response: EPA agrees that, as a ``one-time'' standard exclusion,
the previous waste characterization is sufficient and that no in-place
verification sampling needs to be performed. Under a closure plan, EPA
has required post-excavation sampling by GE to show that the sludge and
sludge mixed with soil have been removed and there is no waste
remaining in the units at the facility.
Comment: GE stated that the Final Rule should be based upon a
cumulative risk analysis, and specific delisting levels for individual
constituents should not be included in the Final Rule.
Response: EPA believes it is not necessary to address this comment
since GE's wastes passed both cumulative risk analysis and specific
delisting levels for individual constituents. EPA also agrees that, for
a ``one-time'' standard exclusion, the Agency does not need to report
delisting levels in the final rule.
Comment: GE stated that EPA should reevaluate the individual
delisting levels for arsenic for three reasons: (1) Arsenic was not
used in the manufacturing process and should be regarded as a
background constituent that is not subject to regulation; (2) EPA has
considered the presence of naturally occurring arsenic and has
acknowledged that delisting levels for arsenic should be calculated
based on the point-of-exposure (POE) concentration allowed by the
Maximum Concentration Limit (MCL); and (3) since the individual
delisting levels are directly related to the amount of waste being
delisted, EPA inappropriately used the total amount of waste (15,000
cu. yards) in the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) to
calculate the individual delisting level for arsenic, rather than the
amount of waste petitioned to be delisted from the basins only. As
arsenic found in the drying beds and basins is likely due to the
inadvertent mixing of native soil with the sludge, EPA should have
excluded the volume of material outside the drying beds and basins
entirely.
Response: GE's wastes passed the arsenic level identified as the
delisting level in the proposed rule. As a result, EPA believes it is
not necessary to address these comments.
Comment: The proposed rule inappropriately included a statement
that the ``exclusion does not change the regulatory status of the
drying beds and on-site basins at the facility in Barceloneta, Puerto
Rico where the waste has been disposed.'' This statement is unnecessary
as it is immaterial to the Rule being proposed, namely whether the
petitioned waste should be excluded. GE has previously corresponded
with EPA regarding the regulatory status of the drying beds and basins,
and expects that EPA will address that issue in a separate context.
Since the comment is immaterial to the Proposed Rule, it should be
removed from the Final Rule.
Response: EPA is not including this statement in the final rule as
its inclusion is not critical in the particular circumstances of this
site. GE has submitted a plan entitled ``Clean Closure Plan for Waste
Units--Former RCA Del Caribe Facility'' (the ``Plan''), which EPA
believes will achieve clean closure of the units.
Comment: EPA must do independent tests. GE polluted the Hudson
River horribly so to rely on this company's representation on what is
hazardous and what is not seems ludicrous. They have polluted before!
GE prefers to spend its money on Jack Welch not being careful on the
earth! The testing listed seems far too little to be acceptable. Page 5
details what the waste is NOT FROM rather than focusing on where the
waste is FROM! Public is NOT being told exactly what origin/processes
are involved. Is this withholding of information deliberate? Chromium
is extremely TOXIC! I recommend holding GE to much stricter standards.
Response: The waste is F006 wastewater treatment sludge that was
generated from chemical etching operation. The tests of the waste
conducted by GE have been independently validated by independent
validators. Also, as stated above in paragraph II.C., GE has signed a
certification of accuracy and responsibility statement set forth in 40
CFR 260.22(i)(12). By this certification, GE attests that all submitted
information is true, accurate and complete. GE analyzed the wastes and
groundwater for arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, hexavalent
chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, and silver; for Appendix IX
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs); and, for Appendix IX Semi-Volatile
Organic Compounds (SVOCs). Characteristic testing of soil and sludge
samples also included analysis of ignitability and corrosivity. EPA
believes appropriate standards have been satisfied.
IV. EPA's Evaluation and Final Rule
A. What Decision Is EPA Finalizing and Why?
Today the EPA is finalizing an exclusion for an estimated volume
ranging from 5,000 to 15,000 cubic yards of WWTP sludge resulting from
the chemical etching operation at its facility in RCA del Caribe in
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico.
GE petitioned EPA to exclude, or delist, the WWTP sludge because GE
believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the criteria for which
it was listed and that there are no additional constituents or factors
which could cause the waste to be hazardous. Review of this petition
included consideration of the original listing criteria, as well as the
additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 (HSWA). See section 222 of HSWA, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.)
6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22.
On March 19, 2004, EPA proposed to exclude or delist GE's WWTP
sludge resulting from the chemical etching operation from the list of
hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31 and accepted public comment on the
proposed rule (69 FR 12995). EPA considered all comments received, and
we believe that this waste should be excluded from hazardous waste
control.
B. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion?
GE must dispose of the WWTP sludge resulting from the chemical
etching operation at its facility in Barceloneta, PR, formerly known as
the RCA del Caribe facility, in a Subtitle D landfill which is
permitted, licensed, or registered by a State or Commonwealth to manage
industrial waste. Any amount of WWTP sludge which is in excess of
15,000 cubic yards is not considered delisted under this exclusion.
This exclusion is effective only if all conditions contained in today's
rule are satisfied.
C. When Is the Delisting Effective?
This rule is effective February 1, 2007. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. This rule
reduces rather than increases the existing requirements and, therefore,
is effective immediately upon publication under the Administrative
Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
D. How Does This Action Affect the States or the Commonwealth?
Because EPA is issuing today's exclusion under the Federal RCRA
delisting program, only States or Commonwealth subject to Federal
[[Page 4648]]
RCRA delisting provisions would be affected. This would exclude States
or Commonwealth who have received authorization from the EPA to make
their own delisting decisions.
EPA allows the States or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 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 or
Commonwealth. Because a dual system (that is, both Federal (RCRA) and
State or Commonwealth (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's
waste, the EPA urges petitioner to contact the pertinent State or the
Commonwealth regulatory authority to establish the status of its wastes
under the State or Commonwealth law.
EPA has also authorized some States to administer a delisting
program in place of the federal program to make State delisting
decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized
States. If GE transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste
in any State with delisting authorization, GE must obtain a delisting
from that State before it can manage the waste as nonhazardous in the
State. Delisting petitions approved by the EPA Administrator under 40
CFR 260.22 are effective only after the final rule has been published
in the Federal Register.
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 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.
Authority: Section 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: January 26, 2007.
Walter Mugdan,
Director, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, Region 2.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is 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.
40 CFR Part 261, Appendix IX
0
2. Table 1 of appendix IX of part 261 is amended by adding the
following entry in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Waste Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
[[Page 4649]]
Table 1.--Waste Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
GE's Former RCA del Caribe.............................. Barceloneta, PR........................ Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludges from
chemical etching operation (EPA Hazardous Waste No.
F006) and contaminated soil mixed with sludge. This
is a one-time exclusion for a range of 5,000 to
15,000 cubic yards of WWTP sludge on condition of
disposal in a Subtitle D landfill. This exclusion
was published on February 1, 2007. 1. Reopener
Language--(a) If, anytime after disposal of the
delisted waste, GE discovers that any condition or
assumption related to the characterization of the
excluded waste which was used in the evaluation of
the petition or that was predicted through modeling
is not as reported in the petition, then GE must
report any information relevant to that condition or
assumption, in writing, to the Director of the
Division of Environmental Planning and Protection in
Region 2 within 10 days of first of discovering that
information. (b) Upon receiving information
described in paragraph (a) of this section,
regardless of its source, the Director will
determine whether the reported condition requires
further action. Further action may include repealing
the exclusion, modifying the exclusion, or other
appropriate action deemed necessary to protect human
health or the environment.
2. Notifications--GE must provide a one-time written
notification to any State or Commonwealth Regulatory
Agency in any State or Commonwealth to which or
through which the waste described above will be
transported for disposal at least 60 days prior to
the commencement of such activities. Failure to
provide such a notification will result in a
violation of the waste exclusion and a possible
revocation of the decision.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E7-1618 Filed 1-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
