[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 28, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58520-58521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29036]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[FRL-5334-7]
Oregon: Affirmation of Immediate Final Rule To Authorize State
Hazardous Waste Program Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Affirmation of immediate final rule and response to comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) today
is responding to a significant adverse comment received in response to
EPA's published decision in the Federal Register at Vol. 60, No. 195,
FR 52629, October 10, 1995, to grant final authorization of Oregon's
hazardous waste program revision under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, as amended (RCRA). After consideration of the comment,
EPA's decision that Oregon's hazardous waste program revision satisfies
all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization
remains unchanged. Thus, EPA approves Oregon's hazardous waste program
revision and authorization of the revised program shall become
effective on December 7, 1995.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Williams. U.S. EPA, M/S HW-105,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, Phone (206) 553-2137.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
EPA published an Immediate Final Rule in the Federal Register Vol.
60, No. 195 on October 10, 1995, FR 52629, stating that authorization
of a revision to Oregon's hazardous waste program ``shall become
effective on December 7, 1995, unless significant adverse comments on
Oregon's program revision application are received by the close of
business on November 8, 1995.'' One significant comment was received on
November 8, 1995, by the Technical Staff of the Confederated Tribes of
the Umatilla Indian Reservation. EPA's Immediate Final Decision
explained that if an adverse comment was received, EPA would publish
either ``(1) A withdrawal of the Immediate Final Decision or (2) a
notice containing a response to comments which either affirms that the
Immediate Final Decision takes effect or reverses the decision.'' EPA
does not believe that the significant adverse comment made by the
Technical Staff of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation (Technical Staff of CTUIR or Technical Staff) merits a
withdrawal of the Immediate Final Decision. However, EPA believes that
a response to the Technical Staff of CTUIR is important to address the
concerns raised and to affirm that the Immediate Final Decision will
take effect as described.
B. Comments Regarding the Immediate Final Decision
The Technical Staff raised five issues concerning the Agency's
decision to authorize Oregon's hazardous waste program revision. The
heart of the comments go to the Technical Staff's concern over disposal
of chemical weapons at the Umatilla Army Depot. To address the
underlying concern, EPA reaffirms its role in environmental protection
in this country. EPA is firmly committed to protection of human health
and the environment and to ensuring that hazardous wastes are managed
in an environmentally sound manner. After authorizing a state for a
revision to its hazardous waste program, EPA functions in an oversight
capacity with a strong mandate to see that the goals of RCRA are met.
Based on its decision to authorize a revision to Oregon's hazardous
waste program, EPA believes that Oregon can meet its delegated
obligation to carry out a hazardous waste program equivalent to the
federal RCRA program. EPA does not abdicate its central role in
protection of this nation's human health and the environment when it
delegates a program to a state. EPA continues to monitor and assess a
delegated program and, when necessary, calls upon the Agency's own
enforcement authorities to fulfill the goals of RCRA. This core
commitment is central to RCRA and no delegation alters the Agency's
firm stance on upholding its obligation to protect the environment.
The specific concerns raised by the Technical Staff can be
addressed one by one. The first issue is a concern that Tribal staff
had neither initiated nor completed an independent Tribal evaluation of
Oregon's authority compared to the federal requirements. EPA
appreciates the difficulty in evaluating a state's application for
revision to its authorized program. This complex task is detailed and
resource intensive. To assist interested parties who wish to review a
state application, EPA makes the state application available for review
and designates staff to be available to respond to concerns. EPA
believes that these measures, combined with publication in two of the
largest newspapers in the state and in the Federal Register as well as
the provision of an opportunity to comment on an authorization
decision, are adequate. The Agency makes the decision to authorize a
state program based on its findings that a state program is equivalent
to the federal program, consistent on a national basis and provides
adequate enforcement.
The second issue raised by the Technical Staff is a concern with
proposed incinerators on ceded lands. If hazardous waste incinerators
are built and permitted under RCRA, Oregon will have primary
responsibility for enforcing corrective action requirements for these
units. EPA will continue to oversee and assess the delegated program
and anticipates working closely with Oregon as Oregon initiates its
authorized corrective action program. Through the Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between Oregon and EPA, the integrity of the delegated
program will be maintained. EPA will use the Agency's enforcement
authorities where necessary to ensure that human health and the
environment are protected. Additionally, where EPA has trust
obligations on ceded lands, EPA will act to fulfill those obligations.
The third issue raised is a concern that Oregon lacks a baseline
environmental and human health monitoring system to predict, identify
or
[[Page 58521]]
mitigate operational or accidental impacts. This concern raises a basic
authorization issue about the delegated program currently in Oregon.
EPA has not identified a similar concern in Oregon's delegated program
but appreciates the comment. Although this concern does not effect the
immediate decision to authorize this revision to Oregon's program, EPA
will assess this concern in light of the existing delegated program.
The fourth issue raises a concern that the Confederated Tribes have
interests, such as Natural Resource Trustee authority under CERCLA and
Local Reuse of disposal of excess federal property land issues, that
are directly impacted by the increased permitting authority available
to Oregon upon authorization for this program revision. EPA and Oregon
will work closely as Oregon undertakes this new delegation of authority
in its hazardous waste program. In its evaluation of Oregon's revision
to its delegated program, EPA has no reason to believe that these
Tribal interests will not be addressed.
The final issue raises a concern related to emergency preparedness
should proposed hazardous waste incinerators be sited as proposed on
ceded lands near the Umatilla Reservation. EPA believes that emergency
preparedness and planning is very important at all hazardous waste
management sites. All appropriate parties should be included as part of
the emergency planning coordination process. EPA will encourage Oregon
to include all such appropriate parties in this process.
After consideration of these issues, EPA affirms its Immediate
Final Decision to grant final authorization for Oregon's hazardous
waste program revision.
C. Decision
I conclude that the immediate final decision, as noticed in the
Federal Register Vol. 60, No. 195, on October 10, 1995, will take
effect on December 7, 1995 as described. Accordingly, Oregon is granted
final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program, as revised.
Compliance With Executive Order 12866
The Office of management and Budget has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 12866.
Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of 4 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify
that this authorization will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. It does not impose any new
burdens on small entities. This rule, therefore, does not require a
regulatory flexibility analysis.
Authority: This notice is issued under the authority of Section
2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the solid Waste Disposal Act as amended
42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Dated: November 14, 1995.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-29036 Filed 11-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
