[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3869-3873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1756]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-6223-5]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today is granting a
petition submitted by American Steel Cord, formerly Kokoku Steel Cord
Corporation, to exclude (or ``delist'') certain solid wastes from the
lists of hazardous wastes contained in Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Subpart D of Part 261. EPA has concluded that the
petitioned waste is not a hazardous waste when disposed of in a
Subtitle D landfill. This exclusion applies only to the wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) sludge generated by American Steel Cord in
Scottsburg, Indiana. Today's action conditionally excludes the
petitioned waste from the requirements of the hazardous waste
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
when disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 26, 1999.
ADDRESSES: The regulatory docket for this final rule which contains the
complete petition and supporting documents is located at U.S. EPA
Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3590, and is available
for viewing from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. Call Judy Kleiman at (312) 886-1482 for
appointments. The public may copy material from the regulatory docket
at cost of $0.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning
this notice, contact Judy Kleiman at the address above or at (312) 886-
1842.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Authority
Under Secs. 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition EPA to
remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding them from
the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Subpart D of Part 261.
Specifically, Sec. 260.20 allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of Parts 260 through
266, 268 and 273; and Sec. 260.22 provides generators the opportunity
to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``facility-
specific'' basis from the hazardous waste lists. Petitioners must
provide sufficient information 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, where there is 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, the Administrator must determine that such factors do
not warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
B. History of this Rulemaking
American Steel Cord petitioned EPA to exclude its WWTP sludge from
hazardous waste control. After evaluating the petition, on April 15,
1998, EPA proposed to exclude American Steel Cord's waste from the
lists of hazardous wastes in subpart D of part 261 (see 63 FR 18354).
This rulemaking addresses the public comments received on the proposal
and finalizes the proposed decision to grant American Steel Cord's
petition.
II. Disposition of Delisting Petition
American Steel Cord, Route 1 Box 357K, Scottsburg, Indiana 47170
A. Proposed Exclusion
American Steel Cord petitioned EPA to exclude an annual volume of
3,000 cubic yards of WWTP filtercake sludge from the list of hazardous
wastes contained in Sec. 261.31, and subsequently provided additional
information to complete its petition. The WWTP sludge is listed as EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F006. The listed constituents of concern for EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F006 are cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel and
cyanide (complexed) (see Appendix VII of part 261).
In support of its petition, American Steel Cord submitted detailed
descriptions and schematic diagrams of its manufacturing and wastewater
treatment processes, and analytical testing results for representative
samples of the petitioned waste, including (1) the hazardous
characteristics of corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity; (2) total
constituent analysis and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(SW-846 Method 1311) analyses for the eight toxicity characteristic
metals listed in Sec. 261.24, plus copper, nickel, thallium, vanadium,
and zinc; (3) total constituent and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP, SW-846 Method 1311) analyses for 121 volatile and
semi-volatile organic compounds; (4) analyses for total sulfide, total
cyanide, and TCLP analysis for cyanide; and (5) analysis for oil and
grease.
EPA evaluated the information and analytical data provided by
American Steel Cord and tentatively determined that American Steel Cord
had successfully demonstrated that the petitioned waste is not
hazardous. See the proposed exclusion (63 FR 18354; April 15, 1998) for
a detailed explanation of EPA's evaluation.
B. Response to Comments
EPA received public comment on the April 15, 1998 proposal from
American Steel Cord and from the Environmental Defense Fund.
Comment: American Steel Cord commented that its waste is measured
by weight, not by volume, and that the Agency was incorrect in assuming
a density of one when converting from tons to cubic yards. The density
of the waste is considerably less than one, so that the petitioned
waste was more than 950 yd\3\. Furthermore, American Steel Cord
anticipates that the total annual volume of waste generated could
increase to 3,000 cubic yards and requested that the exclusion be
applied to this larger volume.
Response: The volume specified in today's final rule has been
increased to 3,000 cubic yards from the 950 cubic yards proposed on
April 15, 1998. In so doing, the final allowable levels for each
constituent have been decreased from
[[Page 3870]]
the proposed levels in accordance with the CML model.
Comment: Commenter stated that the waste was only evaluated for
risk under the scenario of mismanagement in a landfill, but the
proposed delisting does not contain language limiting management of the
delisted waste to disposal in a Subtitle D landfill.
Response: The Agency has recently adopted the policy that new
delistings apply only to wastes managed in the type of unit modeled in
the delisting risk assessment. In accordance with this policy,
enforceable language has been incorporated into the final rule stating
that this exclusion applies only if the waste is disposed in a Subtitle
D landfill permitted by the State.
Comment: Commenter stated that there is no discussion of the
possibility that the leachability might be underestimated by the TCLP
or that this procedure may be affected by the iron content or other
attributes of the waste such as pH.
Response: Although no laboratory test can exactly replicate
environmental conditions for all landfills, the Agency has developed
the TCLP to be used as a reasonable means of predicting leachability in
a solid waste landfill. For wastes with close to neutral pH, such as
the filtercake from American Steel Cord which has a pH between 8.5 and
8.9, the Agency believes that the TCLP is a reliable test in the
absence of extreme environmental conditions. While some forms of iron
may affect the leachability of lead bearing wastes, lead is not used in
American Steel Cord's process and there is no significant amount of
lead in the waste. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that
excess iron was introduced at any time into the process or the
wastestream for the purpose of reducing the leachability of lead.
Comment: Commenter stated that the Agency should consider sampling
and other requirements that will ensure that these factors will not
change in the future.
Response: The exclusion requires periodic testing to verify that
the waste will remain in compliance with the conditions of the
exclusion. The final rule also includes language requiring American
Steel Cord to notify the Agency of any change in process.
Comment: Commenter stated that the Agency should consider risks
posed by total concentrations via the air pathway. No support has been
offered for the conclusion that appreciable air releases are unlikely.
Response: Air modeling was done for the pathways of inhalation,
ingestion of air borne particulates and air deposition on soil followed
by ingestion by a child. The concentrations of all constituents in
American Steel Cord's waste were orders of magnitude below the health
based levels of concern for each of these pathways. A full discussion
of the air modeling is contained in the docket.
Comment: Commenter stated that since total concentration is used in
evaluating risk by the air pathway, EPA should promulgate limits on
total concentrations, as well as limits on the TCLP concentrations.
Response: Screening levels for this waste were back calculated and
were determined to be a thousand to a million times the levels detected
in American Steel Cord's waste. Thus the waste is not expected to pose
a threat by the air pathway and the Agency believes that it is not
meaningful to set limits on totals which would be three to six orders
of magnitude above the concentrations detected in the waste.
Comment: Commenter stated that the proposed TCLP limit for xylene
in this waste exceeds the allowable level for xylene in storage tanks
in the air characteristics study.
Response: The scenario upon which the air characteristic study was
based is not applicable to American Steel Cord's waste. This delisting
applies to a limited quantity of non-liquid waste which will be
disposed in a Subtitle D landfill. Furthermore, the highest total
concentration of xylene in any sample of this waste was 22 ppb which is
well below air characteristics number of 200 ppm for xylene in waste
stored in tanks.
Comment: Commenter stated that the proposed rule only requires the
facility to meet the applicable delisting levels but does not require
notification of a change in process which should trigger Agency
verification activities. The EPA should require notification of changes
in operating conditions.
Response: In the event of a process change, the facility is
required to meet the established delisting limits and must perform
testing to verify that the levels established in this rule are being
met. The facility must also verify that no additional constituents have
been introduced. Data obtained from verification testing must be
submitted to EPA.
Comment: Commenter stated that the EPA should add provisions to the
final rule stating that the delisting is only valid when the waste is
disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill permitted by the State, since the
Agency has not evaluated all potential mismanagement scenarios.
Response: Specific language has been added to paragraph 1 of the
final rule which requires that the waste must be disposed of in a
Subtitle D landfill.
Comment: Commenter stated that the EPA should add provisions to the
final rule stating that if the facility plans to dispose of the waste
in a landfill on site, it must notify the Agency at least 60 days prior
to first utilizing an onsite landfill.
Response: The Agency is requiring that the waste be disposed of
properly in a Subtitle D landfill regulated by the State. To dispose of
the waste on site, American Steel Cord would have to construct a
Subtitle D landfill on its property and obtain all necessary permits
from the State of Indiana. The US EPA does not regulate which Subtitle
D landfill the waste may be sent to, nor does the Agency routinely
require notification of wastes disposed in units regulated by the
State.
Comment: Commenter stated that EPA should add provisions to the
final rule stating that American Steel Cord must report to EPA receipt
of any environmental data that departs from the data that were modeled
or predicted in the initial delisting evaluation.
Response: Language has been included in paragraph 4 of the final
rule which requires the facility to report in writing any data which
might indicate that the levels in paragraph 1 of this rule have been
exceeded or that the initial delisting decision was inappropriate or
wrong.
Comment: Commenter stated that the proposed delisting has failed to
include procedures for suspension or termination of the exclusion in
the event of mismanagement of delisted waste.
Response: The Agency has recently adopted a policy of incorporating
language into all new exclusions which will allow the Agency to reopen,
revoke, or otherwise suspend the delisting in a timely manner in the
event of mismanagement. This language will establish a mechanism to
review and act expeditiously on the delisting when additional data
become available indicating the initial delisting decision was
inappropriate or wrong.
C. Changes to Proposed Verification Testing Conditions
In the proposed rulemaking, EPA included delisting levels for 23
constituents which would be protective of human health and the
environment and which could not be exceeded in a TCLP extract of the
petitioned waste. These levels have been lowered in today's rule to
allow for an increased volume. In addition, the proposed levels of 200
mg/l for barium, 10 mg/l for chromium, 5 mg/l for selenium and 20 mg/l
for silver have been lowered to the levels set in the hazardous waste
[[Page 3871]]
toxicity characteristic in Sec. 261.24 to ensure that the petitioned
waste, even though protective of human health and the environment,
remains below the TC levels.
Levels in the proposed rule were based on ``Docket Report on
Health-Based Levels and Solubilities Used in the Evaluation of
Delisting Petitions,'' December 1994. This document was revised in May,
1996, and the health based level for benzo butyl phthlate was changed
from .01 mg/l to 7.0 mg/l, the health based level for 1,4-
dichlorobenzene was changed from .075 mg/l to .004 mg/l, and the health
based level for cis 1,2-dichloroethene was changed from .07 mg/l to .4
mg/l. The delisting levels in today's final rule are based on the more
recent health based numbers.
The proposed rule incorrectly allowed for a level of 10 mg/l
chloroform. Under the proposed rule, the correct level should have been
1 mg/l. Under today's rule, the increased volume lowers the level for
chloroform to .68 mg/l.
Paragraph 1 in Table 1 of Appendix IX to Part 261 now reads 1.
Verification Testing: American Steel Cord must implement an annual
testing program to demonstrate, based on the analysis of a minimum of
four representative samples, that the constituent concentrations
measured in the TCLP extract of the waste are within specific levels.
The constituent concentrations must not exceed the following levels
(mg/l) which are back-calculated from the delisting health-based levels
and a DAF of 68. Arsenic--3.4 Barium--100; Cadmium--.34; Chromium--5;
Copper--88.4; Lead--1.02; Mercury--.136; Nickel--6.8; Selenium--1;
Silver--5; Zinc--680; Cyanide--13.6; Acetone--272; Benzo butyl
phthlate--476; Chloroform--.68; 1,4-Dichlorobenzene--.272; cis 1,2-
Dichloroethene--27.2; Methylene chloride--.34; Naphthalene--68;
Styrene--6.8; Tetrachloroethene--.34; Toluene--68; and Xylene--680.
American Steel Cord must measure and record the pH of the waste using
SW 846 method 9045 and must record all pH measurements performed in
accordance with the TCLP.
D. Final Agency Decision
For the reasons stated in both the proposal and this notice, EPA
has concluded that American Steel Cord's petitioned waste may be
excluded from hazardous waste control. EPA, therefore, is granting a
final exclusion for the WWTP sludge generated by American Steel Cord at
its facility in Scottsburg, Indiana. This exclusion applies to the
waste described in the petition only if the requirements described in
Table 1 of part 261 Appendix IX are satisfied.
Although management of the waste covered by this exclusion is
removed from Subtitle C jurisdiction, this exclusion applies only where
this waste is disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted,
licensed, or registered by a state to manage municipal and/or
industrial solid waste.
III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion
The final exclusion being granted today is issued under the Federal
(RCRA) delisting program. States, however, are allowed to impose (non-
RCRA) regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's,
pursuant to section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may
include a provision which prohibits a Federally-issued exclusion from
taking effect in the State. Because a petitioner's waste may be
regulated under a dual system (i.e., both Federal (RCRA) and State
(non-RCRA) programs), petitioners are urged to contact the State
regulatory authority to determine the current status of their waste
under State law.
Furthermore, some States are authorized to administer a delisting
program in lieu of the Federal program (i.e., to make their own
delisting decisions). Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those
authorized States. If the petitioned waste will be transported to any
State with delisting authorization, American Steel Cord must obtain
delisting authorization from that State before the waste may be managed
as nonhazardous in the State.
IV. Effective Date
This rule is effective Janaury 26, 1999. 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. That is the
case here, because this rule reduces the existing requirements for
persons generating hazardous wastes. These reasons also provide a basis
for making this rule effective immediately, upon publication, under the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
V. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory
actions. The effect of this rule is to reduce the overall costs and
economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. This
reduction is achieved by excluding waste generated at a specific
facility from EPA's lists of hazardous wastes, thereby enabling this
facility to treat its waste as non-hazardous. Therefore, this rule does
not represent a significant regulatory action under the Executive
Order, and no assessment of costs and benefits is necessary. The Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) has also exempted this rule from the
requirement for OMB review under section (6) of Executive Order 12866.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612,
whenever an agency is required to publish a general notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the
Administrator or delegated representative certifies that the rule will
not have any impact on any small entities.
This rule will not have an adverse economic impact on any small
entities since its effect would be to reduce the overall costs of EPA's
hazardous waste regulations. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this
regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This regulation, therefore, does not require
a regulatory flexibility analysis.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and record-keeping requirements associated
with this final rule have been approved by OMB under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2050-0053.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement for rules with Federal
mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local, and tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. When such a statement is required for EPA
rules, under section 205 of the UMRA, EPA must identify and consider
alternatives, including the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. EPA
must select that alternative, unless
[[Page 3872]]
the Administrator explains in the final rule why it was not selected or
it is inconsistent with law. Before EPA establishes regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must develop under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, giving
them meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising them on compliance with the
regulatory requirements. The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate
for regulatory purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon
State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. EPA finds
that today's proposed delisting decision is deregulatory in nature and
does not impose any enforceable duty upon State, local or tribal
governments or the private sector. In addition, today's delisting
decision does not establish any regulatory requirements for small
governments and so does not require a small government agency plan
under UMRA section 203.
IX. Submission to Congress and General Accounting Office
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 Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Comptroller General of the United States prior to
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will become
effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register.
X. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency. This final rule is not subject
to E.O. 13045 because this is not an economically significant
regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866 and the environmental health
or safety risks addressed by this action do not have a disproportionate
effect on children.
XI. Executive Order 12875
Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not
create a mandate on state, local or tribal governments. The rule does
not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.
XII. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting representatives of Indian tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect
their communities.'' Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: December 21, 1998.
Margaret McCue,
Acting Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR Part 261 is amended
as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for Part 261 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
2. Table 1 of Appendix IX of Part 261 is amended to add the
following waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as
follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 1.--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3873]]
* * * * * *
*
American Steel Cord.................. Scottsburg, IN......... Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludge from
electroplating operations (EPA Hazardous Waste
No. F006) generated at a maximum annual rate of
3,000 cubic yards per year, after January 26,
1999, and disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill.
1. Verification Testing: American Steel Cord
must implement an annual testing program to
demonstrate, based on the analysis of a minimum
of four representative samples, that the
constituent concentrations measured in the TCLP
extract of the waste are within specific
levels. The constituent concentrations must not
exceed the following levels (mg/l) which are
back-calculated from the delisting health-based
levels and a DAF of 68. Arsenic--3.4; Barium--
100; Cadmium--.34; Chromium--5; Copper--88.4.;
Lead--1.02; Mercury--.136; Nickel--6.8.;
Selenium--1; Silver--5; Zinc--680; Cyanide--
13.6; Acetone--272; Benzo butyl phthlate--476;
Chloroform--.68; 1,4-Dichlorobenzene--.272; cis-
1,2-Dichloroethene--27.2; Methylene chloride--
.34; Naphthalene--68; Styrene--6.8;
Tetrachloroethene--.34; Toluene--68; and
Xylene--680. American Steel Cord must measure
and record the pH of the waste using SW 846
method 9045 and must record all pH measurements
performed in accordance with the TCLP.
2. Changes in Operating Conditions: If American
Steel Cord significantly changes the
manufacturing or treatment process or the
chemicals used in the manufacturing or
treatment process, American Steel Cord may
handle the WWTP filter press sludge generated
from the new process under this exclusion only
after the facility has demonstrated that the
waste meets the levels set forth in paragraph 1
and that no new hazardous constituents listed
in Appendix VIII of Part 261 have been
introduced.
3. Data Submittals: The data obtained through
annual verification testing or compliance with
paragraph 2 must be submitted to U.S. EPA
Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL
60604-3590, within 60 days of sampling. Records
of operating conditions and analytical data
must be compiled, summarized, and maintained on
site for a minimum of five years and must be
made available for inspection. All data must be
accompanied by a signed copy of the
certification statement in 260.22(I)(12).
4. (a) If, anytime after disposal of the
delisted waste, American Steel Cord possesses
or is otherwise made aware of any environmental
data (including but not limited to leachate
data or groundwater monitoring data) or any
other data relevant to the delisted waste
indicating that any constituent identified in
Condition (1) is at a level in the leachate
higher than the delisting level established in
Condition (1), or is at a level in the ground
water or soil higher than the health based
level, then American Steel Cord must report
such data, in writing, to the Regional
Administrator within 10 days of first
possessing or being made aware of that data.
(b) Based on the information described in
paragraph (a) and any other information
received from any source, the Regional
Administrator will make a preliminary
determination as to whether the reported
information requires Agency action to protect
human health or the environment. Further action
may include suspending, or revoking the
exclusion, or other appropriate response
necessary to protect human health and the
environment.
(c) If the Regional Administrator determines
that the reported information does require
Agency action, the Regional Administrator will
notify the facility in writing of the actions
the Regional Administrator believes are
necessary to protect human health and the
environment. The notice shall include a
statement of the proposed action and a
statement providing the facility with an
opportunity to present information as to why
the proposed Agency action is not necessary or
to suggest an alternative action. The facility
shall have 10 days from the date of the
Regional Administrator's notice to present such
information.
(d) Following the receipt of information from
the facility described in paragraph (c) or (if
no information is presented under paragraph (c)
the initial receipt of information described in
paragraph (a), the Regional Administrator will
issue a final written determination describing
the Agency actions that are necessary to
protect human health or the environment. Any
required action described in the Regional
Administrator's determination shall become
effective immediately, unless the Regional
Administrator provides otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 99-1756 Filed 1-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
