Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 21651

(D) EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI SOURCE SPECIFIC PERMITS AND ORDERS

Name of source Order/permit

number

State

effective

date

EPA

approval

date

Explanation

*******

Eagle-Picher Technologies Joplin, MO ........................................ Consent

Agreement.

08/26/99 4/24/00

65 FR

21651

[FR Doc. 00–10031 Filed 4–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW–FRL–6583–6]

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) is granting a petition

submitted by DuraTherm, Inc.,

(DuraTherm) to exclude from hazardous

waste control (or delist) a certain solid

waste. This action responds to the

petition submitted by DuraTherm to

delist the desorber solids on a

‘‘generator specific’’ basis from the lists

of hazardous waste.

After careful analysis, the EPA has

concluded that the petitioned waste is

not hazardous waste when disposed of

in subtitle D landfills. This exclusion

applies to desorber solids generated at

DuraTherm’s San Leon, Texas, facility.

Accordingly, this final rule excludes the

petitioned waste from the requirements

of hazardous waste regulations under

the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of

in subtitle D landfills but imposes

testing conditions to ensure that the

future-generated wastes remain

qualified for delisting.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 24, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The public docket for this

final rule is located at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

Texas 75202, and is available for

viewing in the EPA Freedom of

Information Act review room on the 7th

floor from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding

Federal holidays. Call (214) 665–6444

for appointments. The reference number

for this docket is ‘‘F–99–TXDEL–

DURATHERM.’’ The public may copy

material from any regulatory docket at

no cost for the first 100 pages and at a

cost of $0.15 per page for additional

copies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information, contact Bill

Gallagher, at (214) 665–6775. For

technical information concerning this

document, contact Michelle Peace, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, (214) 665–

7430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

information in this section is organized

as follows:

I. Overview Information

A. What action is EPA finalizing?

B. Why is EPA approving this delisting?

C. What are the limits of this exclusion?

D. How will DuraTherm manage the waste

if it is delisted?

E. When is the final delisting exclusion

effective?

F. How does this action affect states?

II. Background

A. What is a delisting?

B. What regulations allow facilities to

delist a waste?

C. What information must the generator

supply?

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste Data

A. What wastes did DuraTherm petition

EPA to delist?

B. How much wastes did DuraTherm

propose to delist?

C. How did DuraTherm sample and

analyze the waste data in this petition?

IV. Public Comments Received on the

Proposed Exclusion

A. Who submitted comments on the

proposed rule?

B. How will DuraTherm segregate the

petitioned waste from the other wastes

accepted and processed in the thermal

desorption unit?

C. Why is EPA applying the Land Disposal

Restrictions to the petitioned wastes?

V. Regulatory Impact

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

IX. Congressional Review Act

X. Executive Order 12875

XI. Executive Order 13045

XII. Executive Order 13084

XIII. National Technology Transfer and

Advancements Act

XIV. Executive Order 13132 Federalism

I. Overview Information

A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?

The EPA is finalizing:

(1) the decision to grant DuraTherm’s

petition to have their desorber solids

excluded, or delisted, from the

definition of a hazardous waste; and

(2) the use of the EPA Composite

Model for Landfills as the fate and

transport model to evaluate the

potential impact of the petitioned waste

on human health and the environment.

The Agency used this model to predict

the concentration of hazardous

constituents released from the

petitioned waste once it is disposed. After evaluating the petition, EPA

proposed, on August 18, 1999 to

exclude the DuraTherm waste from the

lists of hazardous wastes under

§§ 261.31 and 261.32 (see 64 FR 44866).

B. Why Is EPA Approving This

Delisting?

DuraTherm petitioned to exclude the

desorber solids because it does not

believe that the petitioned waste meets

the criteria for which it was listed.

DuraTherm also believes that the

waste does not contain any other

constituents that would render it

hazardous. Review of this petition

included consideration of the original

listing criteria, as well as the additional

listing criteria and the additional factors

required by the Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984.

See section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C.

6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)–(4).

For reasons stated in both the

proposal and this document, EPA

believes that DuraTherm’s desorber

solids should be excluded from

hazardous waste control. The EPA

therefore is granting a final exclusion to

DuraTherm, located in San Leon, Texas,

for its Desorber Solids.

C. What Are the Limits of This

Exclusion?

This exclusion applies to the waste

described in the petition only if the

requirements described in Table 1 of

part 261 and the conditions contained

herein are satisfied. The maximum

annual volume of the Desorber Solids is

20,000 cubic yards.

D. How Will DuraTherm Manage the

Waste if It Is Delisted?

The Desorber Solids is currently

disposed of in an off-site hazardous

21652 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

waste landfill. When delisted, the waste

will be disposed of in an off-site subtitle

D industrial landfill.

E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion

Effective?

This rule is effective April 24, 2000.

The HSWA 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, rather than

increases, 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, pursuant

to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

F. How Does This Action Affect States?

Because EPA is issuing today’s

exclusion under the Federal RCRA

delisting program, only States subject to

Federal RCRA delisting provisions

would be affected. This would exclude

two categories of States: States having a

dual system that includes Federal RCRA

requirements and their own

requirements, and States who have

received our authorization to make their

own delisting decisions.

Here are the details: We allow states

to impose their own non-RCRA

regulatory requirements that are more

stringent than EPA’s, under section

3009 of RCRA. These more stringent

requirements may include a provision

that prohibits a Federally issued

exclusion from taking effect in the State.

Because a dual system (that is, both

Federal (RCRA) and State (non-RCRA)

programs) may regulate a petitioner’s

waste, we urge petitioners to contact the

State regulatory authority to establish

the status of their wastes under the State

law.

The EPA has also authorized some

States (for example, Louisiana, Georgia,

Illinois) to administer a delisting

program in place of the Federal

program, that is, to make State delisting

decisions. Therefore, this exclusion

does not apply in those authorized

States. If DuraTherm transports the

petitioned waste to or manages the

waste in any State with delisting

authorization, DuraTherm must obtain

delisting authorization from that State

before they can manage the waste as

nonhazardous in the State.

II. Background

A. What Is a Delisting Petition?

A delisting petition is a request from

a generator to EPA or another agency

with jurisdiction to exclude from the list

of hazardous wastes, wastes the

generator does not consider hazardous

under RCRA.

B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To

Delist a Waste?

Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22,

facilities may petition the EPA to

remove their wastes from hazardous

waste control by excluding them from

the lists of hazardous wastes contained

in §§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically,

section 260.20 allows any person to

petition the Administrator to modify or

revoke any provision of parts 260

through 265 and 268 of Title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations. Section

260.22 provides generators the

opportunity to petition the

Administrator to exclude a waste on a

‘‘generator-specific’’ basis from the

hazardous waste lists.

C. What Information Must the Generator

Supply?

Petitioners must provide sufficient

information to EPA to allow the EPA to

determine that the waste to be excluded

does not meet any of the criteria under

which the waste was listed as a

hazardous waste. In addition, the

Administrator must determine, where

he/she has a reasonable basis to believe

that factors (including additional

constituents) other than those for which

the waste was listed could cause the

waste to be a hazardous waste, that such

factors do not warrant retaining the

waste as a hazardous waste.

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste Data

A. What Waste Did DuraTherm Petition

EPA To Delist?

On November 6, 1998, DuraTherm in

San Leon, Texas, petitioned the EPA for

a standard exclusion of 20,000 cubic

yards of desorber solids, per calendar

year, resulting from its thermal

desorption treatment process. The

Agency has presently listed the

resulting waste under § 261.3(c)(2)(I)

(the ‘‘derived from’’ rule), as EPA

Hazardous Waste No. F037, F038, K048,

K049, K050 and K051. Table 1 lists the

constituents of concern for these waste

codes.

TABLE 1.—HAZARDOUS WASTE CODES

ASSOCIATED WITH WASTE STREAMS

Waste

code Basis for characteristics/listing

F037 .... Benzene, benzo (a) pyrene, Chrysene, lead, chromium.

F038 .... Benzene, benzo (a) pyrene, Chrysene, lead, chromium.

K048 .... Hexavalent Chromium, Lead.

TABLE 1.—HAZARDOUS WASTE CODES

ASSOCIATED WITH WASTE

STREAMS—Continued

Waste

code Basis for characteristics/listing

K049 .... Hexavalent Chromium, Lead.

K050 .... Hexavalent Chromium.

K051 .... Hexavalent Chromium, Lead.

B. How Much Waste Did DuraTherm

Propose To Delist?

Specifically, in its petition,

DuraTherm requested that EPA grant a

standard exclusion for 20,000 cubic

yards of desorber solids generated per

calender year.

C. How Did DuraTherm Sample and

Analyze the Waste Data in This

Petition?

To support its petition, DuraTherm

submitted:

(1) Descriptions of its thermal

desorption processes associated with

petitioned wastes;

(2) Results of the total constituent list

for 40 CFR part 264 appendix IX

volatiles, semivolatiles, and metals

except pesticides, herbicides, and PCBs;

(3) Results of the constituent list for

appendix IX on Toxicity Characteristic

Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract for

volatiles, semivolatiles, and metals;

(4) Results for reactive sulfide;

(5) Results for reactive cyanide;

(6) Results for pH;

(7) Results of the metals

concentrations in the Multiple

Extraction Procedure extract; and

(8) Results of ignitability.

DuraTherm tested and analyzed the

waste stream under five conditions to

properly account for variables in the

waste stream: During start-up

operations, shut-down operations, slow

feed rates, fast feed rates, and normal

operations. For wastes that failed to

meet the estimated delisting levels,

DuraTherm stabilized the wastes to

prevent leaching metal constituents

from the wastes. The facility submitted

results from the Multiple Extraction

Procedure run on the stabilized

materials.

IV. Public Comments Received on the

Proposed Exclusion

A. Who Submitted Comments on the

Proposed Rule?

The EPA received public comments

on August 18, 1999, proposal from one

interested party, Environmental Issues

Management.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 21653

B. How Will DuraTherm Segregate the

Petitioned Waste From the Other Wastes

Accepted and Processed in the Thermal

Desorption Unit?

Environmental Issues Management

comments that the Agency failed to

identify the rationale and method to

isolate listed waste streams under

consideration for delisting from other

listed waste streams processed by

DuraTherm which were not included

within DuraTherm’s delisting

demonstration. DuraTherm may accept

several other waste streams in addition

to the waste streams being delisted.

DuraTherm’s acceptable waste streams

include chlorinated organics, vinyl

chloride and ethylene dichloride. The

facility runs different batches of waste

for different facilities. Initially,

DuraTherm generates a waste profile for

the material. They return the waste

profile to the generator. When the

wastes are accepted by DuraTherm, they

must meet the profile identified by

DuraTherm. To ensure that no cross

contamination of these batches occur,

the first batch of the petitioned wastes

processed after a batch of chlorinated

organics for instance, will be designated

as ‘‘Hazardous Wastes.’’ To ensure that

subsequent batches are free of any

remaining waste codes, DuraTherm

must analyze the first batch for

constituents for which the waste codes

are listed. Subsequent batches of the

F037,F038, K049, K050, K051 wastes are

eligible for delisting if they meet the

criteria described in Table 1 of appendix

IX, part 261 and no constituents of the

previously processed residues are

detected. The EPA has amended the

conditions in Table 1, Paragraph 2(B) to

reflect the change.

C. Why Is EPA Applying the Land

Disposal Restrictions to the Petitioned

Wastes?

Environmental Issues Management

believes that the Agency’s use of the

Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) to

establish Maximum Allowable

Concentrations is overly conservative

and results in redundant regulation. The

Agency used to the LDR treatment

concentrations as delisting limits for

three of the 12 metals constituents and

all 25 of the organic constituents. The

maximum concentration of the three

metals detected in petitioned waste was

less than the calculated delisting levels

and the LDR treatment standards for the

metals. For example, for chromium the

calculated delisting level was 2.70

mg/l and the LDR treatment standard

was 0.6 mg/l; However, the maximum

concentration of chromium detected in

the samples was 0.18 mg/l. This

concentration is less than the calculated

delisting level and the LDR treatment

standard for chromium. The maximum

concentrations of the semi-volatile and

volatile organic constituents in the

petitioned wastes were also less than

the LDR treatment standards. For

example, the maximum concentration of

phenol detected in the waste was 0.2437

mg/l and the LDR treatment standard

was 6.2 mg/l. The maximum

concentration of xylene in the waste

streams was 0.0017 mg/l and the LDR

treatment standard was 0.032 mg/l.

DuraTherm’s treatment process did not

have any problems achieving the more

protective levels, in fact no additional

treatment was needed to meet the LDR

treatment standards. The proposed

delisting levels for this petition allow

for further protection of human health

and the environment with very little

impact on DuraTherm’s operation of

their treatment process.

V. Regulatory Impact

Under Executive Order 12866, EPA

must conduct an ‘‘assessment of the

potential costs and benefits’’ for all

‘‘significant’’ regulatory actions. The

final to grant an exclusion is not

significant, since its effect, if

promulgated, would be to reduce the

overall costs and economic impact of

EPA’s hazardous waste management

regulations. This reduction would be

achieved by excluding waste generated

at a specific facility from EPA’s lists of

hazardous wastes, thereby enabling this

facility to manage its waste as

nonhazardous. There is no additional

impact therefore, due to today’s final

rule. Therefore, this proposal would not

be a significant regulation and no cost/

benefit assessment is required. 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 which

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 a small entities.

This rule if promulgated, will not

have an adverse economic impact on

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, if promulgated, 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

recordkeeping requirements associated

with this proposed rule have been

approved by the OMB under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1980 (Public Law 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),

Public Law 104–4, which was signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 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 costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The EPA must select that alternative,

unless 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.

The 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, the delisting does not

establish any regulatory requirements

for small governments and so does not

21654 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

require a small government agency plan

under UMRA section 203.

IX. Congressional Review Act

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. The 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 12875

Under Executive Order 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 OMB 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,

Executive Order 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 Executive Order 12875 do

not apply to this rule.

XI. Executive Order 13045

The Executive Order 13045 is entitled

‘‘Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).

This order applies to any rule that EPA

determines: (1) Is economically

significant as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) the environmental

health or safety risk addressed by the

rule has 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 rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because this is not an

economically significant regulatory

action as defined by Executive Order

12866.

XII. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 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

OMB, 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, Executive

Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected and

other representatives of indian tribal

governments ‘‘to meaningful and timely

input’’ in the development of regulatory

policies on matters that significantly or

uniquely affect their communities of

indian tribal governments. Today’s rule

does not significantly or uniquely affect

the communities of indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

XIII. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), directs the EPA

to use voluntary consensus standards in

its regulatory activities unless to do so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures,

business practices, etc.) developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standard bodies. Where available and

potentially applicable voluntary

consensus standards are not used by

EPA, the NTTAA requires that Agency

to provide Congress, through the OMB,

an explanation of the reasons for not

using such standards.

This rule does not establish any new

technical standards and thus, the

Agency has no need to consider the use

of voluntary consensus standards in

developing this final rule.

XIV. Executive Order 13132 Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that 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.’’

Under section 6 of Executive Order

13132, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications, that

impose substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the Federal government provides

the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and

local governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. The EPA also may not issue

a regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This action does not have federalism

implication. It will not have a

substantial direct effect on 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, because it

affects only one facility.

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).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 21655

Dated: April 11, 2000.

Carl E. Edlund,

Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting

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, 6924(y) and 6938.

2. In Tables 1 and 2 in appendix IX

add the following waste stream in

alphabetical order by facility to read as

follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description

*******

DuraTherm, Incorporated.San Leon, Texas Desorber solids, (at a maximum generation of 20,000 cubic yards per calendar year) generated by

DuraTherm using the thermal desorption treatment process, (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F037 and

F038) and that is disposed of in subtitle D landfills after April 24, 2000.

For the exclusion to be valid, DuraTherm must implement a testing program that meets the following

Paragraphs:

(1) Delisting Levels: All leachable concentrations for those constituents must not exceed the following

levels (ppm). The petitioner must use an acceptable leaching method, for example SW–846, Method

1311 to measure constituents in the waste leachate.

Desorber solids (i) Inorganic Constituents Arsenic—1.35; Antimony—0.162; Barium—54.0; Beryllium—

0.108; Cadmium—0.135; Chromium—0.6; Lead—0.405; Nickel—2.7; Selenium—1.0; Silver—5.0; Vanadium—5.4; Zinc—270.

(ii) Organic Constituents Anthracene—0.28; Benzene—0.135; Benzo(a) anthracene—0.059;

Benzo(b)fluoranthene—0.11; Benzo(a)pyrene—0.061; Bis-ethylhexylphthalate—0.28; Carbon Disulfide—3.8; Chlorobenzene—0.057; Chrysene—0.059; o,m,p Cresols—54; Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene—

0.055; 2,4 Dimethyl phenol—18.9; Dioctyl phthalate—0.017; Ethylbenzene—0.057; Fluoranthene—

0.068; Fluorene—0.059; Naphthalene—0.059; Phenanthrene—0.059; Phenol—6.2; Pyrene—0.067;

Styrene—2.7; Trichloroethylene—0.054; Toluene—0.08; Xylene—0.032

(2) Waste Holding and Handling: (A) DuraTherm must store the desorber solids as described in its

RCRA permit, or continue to dispose of as hazardous all desorber solids generated, until they have

completed verification testing described in Paragraph (3)(A) and (B), as appropriate, and valid analyses show that paragraph (1) is satisfied.

(B) In order to isolate wastes that have been processed in the unit prior to one of the waste codes to be

delisted, DuraTherm must designate the first batch of F037, F038, K048, K049, K050, or K051 wastes

as hazardous. Subsequent batches of these wastes which satisfy paragraph (1) are eligible for

delisting if they meet the criteria in paragraph (1) and no additional constituents (other than those of

the delisted waste streams) from the previously processed wastes are detected.

(C) Levels of constituents measured in the samples of the desorber solids that do not exceed the levels

set forth in Paragraph (1) are nonhazardous. DuraTherm can manage and dispose the nonhazardous

desorber solids according to all applicable solid waste regulations.

(D) If constituent levels in a sample exceed any of the delisting levels set in Paragraph (1), DuraTherm

must retreat or stabilize the batches of waste used to generate the representative sample until it

meets the levels in paragraph(1). DuraTherm must repeat the analyses of the treated waste.

(E) If the facility has not treated the waste, DuraTherm must manage and dispose the waste generated

under subtitle C of RCRA.

(3) Verification Testing Requirements: DuraTherm must perform sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures, according to SW–846 methodologies. If EPA judges the process to be

effective under the operating conditions used during the initial verification testing, DuraTherm may replace the testing required in Paragraph (3)(A) with the testing required in Paragraph (3)(B).

DuraTherm must continue to test as specified in Paragraph (3)(A) until and unless notified by EPA in

writing that testing in Paragraph (3)(A) may be replaced by Paragraph (3)(B).

(A) Initial Verification Testing: After EPA grants the final exclusion, DuraTherm must do the following:

(i) Collect and analyze composites of the desorber solids.

(ii) Make two composites of representative grab samples collected.

(iii) Analyze the waste, before disposal, for all of the constituents listed in Paragraph 1.

(iv) Sixty (60) days after this exclusion becomes final, report the operational and analytical test data, including quality control information.

(v) Submit the test plan for conducting the multiple pH leaching procedure to EPA for approval at least

10 days before conducting the analysis.

(vi) Conduct a multiple pH leaching procedure on 10 samples collected during the sixty-day test period.

(vii) The ten samples should include both non-stabilized and stabilized residual solids. If none of the

samples collected during the sixty-day test period need to be stabilized, DuraTherm should provide

multiple pH data on the first sample of stabilized wastes generated.

(vii) Perform the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure using three different pH extraction fluids to

simulate disposal under three conditions and submit the results within 60 days of completion. Simulate

an acidic landfill environment, basic landfill environment, and a landfill environment similar to the pH of

the waste.

(B) Subsequent Verification Testing: Following written notification by EPA, DuraTherm may substitute

the testing conditions in (3)(B) for (3)(A)(i). DuraTherm must continue to monitor operating conditions,

and analyze representative samples each quarter of operation during the first year of waste generation. The samples must represent the waste generated in one quarter. DuraTherm must run the multiple pH procedure on these waste samples.

21656 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued

Facility Address Waste description

(C) Termination of Organic Testing: (i) DuraTherm must continue testing as required under Paragraph

(3)(B) for organic constituents in Paragraph (1)(A)(ii), until the analytical results submitted under Paragraph (3)(B) show a minimum of two consecutive samples below the delisting levels in Paragraph

(1)(A)(i), DuraTherm may then request that EPA stop quarterly organic testing. After EPA notifies

DuraTherm in writing, the company may end quarterly organic testing.

(ii) Following cancellation of the quarterly testing, DuraTherm must continue to test a representative

composite sample for all constituents listed in Paragraph (1) annually (by twelve months after final exclusion).

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If DuraTherm significantly changes the process described in its

petition or starts any processes that generate(s) the waste that may or could affect the composition or

type of waste generated as established under Paragraph (1) (by illustration, but not limitation, changes

in equipment or operating conditions of the treatment process), they must notify EPA in writing; they

may no longer handle the wastes generated from the new process as nonhazardous until the wastes

meet the delisting levels set in Paragraph (1) and they have received written approval to do so from

EPA.

(5) Data Submittals: DuraTherm must submit the information described below. If DuraTherm fails to submit the required data within the specified time or maintain the required records on-site for the specified

time, EPA, at its discretion, will consider this sufficient basis to reopen the exclusion as described in

Paragraph 6. DuraTherm must:

(A) Submit the data obtained through Paragraph 3 to Mr. William Gallagher, Chief, Region 6 Delisting

Program, EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, Mail Code, (6PD-O) within the time

specified.

(B) Compile records of operating conditions and analytical data from Paragraph (3), summarized, and

maintained on-site for a minimum of five years.

(C) Furnish these records and data when EPA or the State of Texas request them for inspection.

(D) Send along with all data a signed copy of the following certification statement, to attest to the truth

and accuracy of the data submitted:

Under civil and criminal penalty of law for the making or submission of false or fraudulent statements or

representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Federal Code, which include, but may not

be limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify that the information contained in or accompanying this document is true, accurate and complete.

As to the (those) identified section(s) of this document for which I cannot personally verify its (their) truth

and accuracy, I certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility for the persons who,

acting under my direct instructions, made the verification that this information is true, accurate and

complete.

If any of this information is determined by EPA in its sole discretion to be false, inaccurate or incomplete, and upon conveyance of this fact to the company, I recognize and agree that this exclusion of

waste will be void as if it never had effect or to the extent directed by EPA and that the company will

be liable for any actions taken in contravention of the company’s RCRA and CERCLA obligations premised upon the company’s reliance on the void exclusion.

(6) Reopener Language: (A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, DuraTherm 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 for the delisting verification testing is at level higher than the delisting level allowed by the

Regional Administrator or his delegate in granting the petition, then the facility must report the data, in

writing, to the Regional Administrator or his delegate within 10 days of first possessing or being made

aware of that data.

(B) If the annual testing of the waste does not meet the delisting requirements in Paragraph 1,

DuraTherm must report the data, in writing, to the Regional Administrator or his delegate within 10

days of first possessing or being made aware of that data.

(C) If DuraTherm fails to submit the information described in paragraphs (5),(6)(A) or (6)(B) or if any

other information is received from any source, the Regional Administrator or his delegate 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.

(D) If the Regional Administrator or his delegate determines that the reported information does require

Agency action, the Regional Administrator or his delegate will notify the facility in writing of the actions

the Regional Administrator or his delegate 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. The facility shall have 10 days from the date of the Regional Administrator or his delegate’s notice to present such information.

(E) Following the receipt of information from the facility described in paragraph (6)(D) or (if no information is presented under paragraph (6)(D)) the initial receipt of information described in paragraphs (5),

(6)(A) or (6)(B), the Regional Administrator or his delegate 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 or his delegate’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Regional Administrator or his delegate provides otherwise.

(7) Notification Requirements: DuraTherm must do following before transporting the delisted waste: Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting petition and a possible revocation

of the decision.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 21657

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued

Facility Address Waste description

(A) Provide a one-time written notification to any State Regulatory Agency to which or through which

they will transport the delisted waste described above for disposal, 60 days before beginning such activities.

(B) Update the one-time written notification if they ship the delisted waste into a different disposal facility.

*******

TABLE 2.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description

*******

DuraTherm, Incorporated.San Leon, Texas Desorber Solids, (at a maximum generation of 20,000 cubic yards per calendar year) generated by

DuraTherm using the treatment process to treat the Desorber solids, (EPA Hazardous Waste No.

K048, K049, K050, and K051 and disposed of in a subtitle D landfill.

DuraTherm must implement the testing program found in Table 1. Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific

Sources, for the petition to be valid.

*******

[FR Doc. 00–10038 Filed 4–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR PART 11

[DA 00–755]

Emergency Alert System

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document revises part 11

of the Commission’s rules governing the

Emergency Alert System (EAS) to

remove certain rule provisions which

are obsolete and to make minor editorial

revisions.

DATES: Effective April 24, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Berthot, Enforcement Bureau,

Technical and Public Safety Division,

(202) 418–1454.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Order of the

Commission’s Managing Director, DA

00–755, adopted on March 31, 2000,

and released on April 4, 2000. The

complete text of this Order is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Information Center, Courtyard

Level, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington,

D.C., and also may be purchased from

the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., at 202–857–3800, CY–B400, 445

12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C.

The Order amends part 11 to remove

references to the EAS authenticator lists,

which have been discontinued by the

Commission. The EAS authenticator

lists were lists of words distributed

annually by the Commission to the

White House Communications Agency

(WHCA), the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA), and all

EAS participants. The lists were used by

EAS participants to authenticate

national-level EAS messages prior to

activation of the EAS. The Commission

discontinued the EAS authenticator lists

in 1998, after consultation with FEMA

and WHCA, because the new EAS

equipment which must be used by

broadcast stations and cable operators

can process EAS messages automatically

without the need for human

intervention and authentication.

Additionally, the Order removes

references to the required weekly tests

of the old Emergency Broadcast System

Attention Signal from the part 11 rules

because, effective January 1, 1997,

broadcast stations are no longer required

to conduct those tests. Furthermore, the

Order makes minor editorial revisions to

the part 11 rules to reflect the shift of

responsibility for the EAS from the

Commission’s Compliance and

Information Bureau, which has been

eliminated, to the recently established

Enforcement Bureau.

As the Order merely removes obsolete

rule provisions and makes minor

editorial revisions to the rules, the

Commission finds good cause to

conclude that notice and comment

procedures are unnecessary. 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(3)(B). Since a general notice of

proposed rulemaking is not required,

the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not

apply.

The actions taken in the Order have

been analyzed with respect to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and

found to impose no new or modified

reporting and recordkeeping

requirements or burdens on the public.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 11

Radio, Television.

Federal Communications Commission.

Andrew S. Fishel,

Managing Director.

Rule Changes

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Federal Communications

Commission amends 47 CFR part 11 as

follows:

PART 11—EMERGENCY ALERT

SYSTEM (EAS)

1. The authority citation for Part 11

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (o),

303(r), 544(g) and 606.

§ 11.11 [Amended]

2. Section 11.11 is amended by

removing footnotes 4 and 5 in the

Timetable for Broadcast Stations.

§ 11.17 [Removed]

3. Section 11.17 is removed.

4. Section 11.21 is amended by

revising the introductory text to read as

follows: