[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 18, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36731-36733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17479]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[FRL-5258-8]
Arizona: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Affirmation of immediate final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document responds to the comment received on the
immediate final rule published April 11, 1995 (60 FR 18356), and
affirms the Agency's decision to authorize Arizona's revised program.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 12, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: April Katsura, U.S. EPA Region IX (H-
4), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415/744-2030.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 11, 1995, EPA published an
immediate final rule (60 FR 18356) which announced the Agency's
decision to authorize Arizona's revisions to its hazardous waste
program. Those revisions primarily include the Federal amendments made
between July 1, 1990 and June 30, 1992. Major revisions include new
rules relating to wood preserving and boilers and industrial furnaces.
One comment was received during the comment period. After
considering the comment, the Regional Administrator has decided to
affirm her decision to authorize the State of Arizona for the program
revisions. The following is a summary of the comment and the Regional
Administrator's response.
Comment: EPA should not approve the program revision because the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has shown in the
specific examples given by the
[[Page 36732]]
commenter that ADEQ is not capable of implementing Arizona's existing
hazardous waste program. The permitting and enforcement programs are
inconsistent and favor violators. Permitting is also slow and
unresponsive to the public.
The comment contained examples about three facilities. As to the
first facility, the commenter alleged that there have been various
explosions and that waste was sent off-site from the facility to a non-
permitted site. Also, there was no penalty assessed despite an alleged
failure to submit the facility's permit application on time. The
commenter further questioned the validity of a partial facility closure
that was approved after a public hearing was denied. Finally, the
commenter stated that ADEQ has yet to issue a permit for this facility.
In the second case, a facility is operating on the site of a
previous facility. The commenter alleged that both facilities were able
to operate under interim status for over 10 years. The commenter stated
that this allowed increases in storage and treatment capacity at the
facilities without the public participation which would have been
required under the permitting process. The commenter further alleged
that the current facility has documented groundwater and soil
contamination that ADEQ has not addressed.
Lastly, the commenter alleged that in conducting public
participation on a permit for a facility in Phoenix, ADEQ denied a
request for a public hearing on the grounds that there was not
sufficient public interest despite the fact that it was the City of
Phoenix that had requested the hearing.
Response: This comment does not specifically pertain to the State's
program revision discussed in EPA's notice but comments more generally
on the State's overall program capabilities. EPA cannot find that the
examples cited demonstrate an overall lack of permitting and
enforcement capability, though the comment warrants further action as
detailed below.
Based on a review of Arizona's application for final authorization
as well as continuing periodic comprehensive assessments of Arizona's
hazardous waste program, EPA has determined that Arizona meets the RCRA
requirements including those set out in 40 CFR 271.13 through 271.16.
EPA has further determined that Arizona has the capability to implement
these requirements. Also, EPA's oversight of the Arizona program
includes monitoring of the implementation of the approved program,
including permitting and enforcement, through quarterly progress
reports which culminate in an annual on-site review. Arizona most
recently successfully completed the program review process in November
1994, although the review did identify permits and enforcement as some
areas for on-going program improvements.
Information such as that provided by this commenter is continually
evaluated by EPA in these assessments of State capabilities. EPA now is
following up on the commenter's examples as part of EPA's on-going
evaluation of the Arizona program. Problem areas which are identified
through this process will be addressed through program implementation
improvement.
Finally, though the intermittent enforcement complained of does not
represent a lack of program capability, it may, after further
investigation, suggest the need for supplementary Federal enforcement
action in some cases. Although authorized states have primary
enforcement responsibility, EPA retains enforcement authority to carry
out RCRA requirements. The commenter's examples will be fully evaluated
and enforcement action taken, as appropriate.
In sum, EPA has evaluated the state's capability and has determined
that the state has adequate capability to warrant authorization. Any
member of the public, however, is at any time encouraged to raise such
concerns for EPA to take into account in EPA's ongoing assessment and
improvement of program capabilities.
Compliance With Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 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. This authorization effectively
suspends the applicability of certain Federal regulations in favor of
Arizona's program, thereby eliminating duplicative requirements for
handlers of hazardous waste in the State. It does not impose any new
burdens on small entities. This rule, therefore, does not require a
regulatory flexibility analysis.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. When a written statement is needed for an EPA rule, section
205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed 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.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Under the authority of RCRA section 3006(b),
EPA has already approved Arizona's hazardous waste program. EPA does
not anticipate that the approval of the revisons to Arizona's hazardous
waste program referenced in today's notice will result in annual costs
of $100 million or more. EPA estimates that it costs a state
approximately $7,323 to develop and submit to EPA a revision
application for approval.
EPA's approval of state programs generally have a deregulatory
effect on the private sector because once it is determined that a state
hazardous waste program meets the requirements of RCRA section 3006(b)
and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 40 CFR Part 271, owners
and operators
[[Page 36733]]
of hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities (TSDFs)
may take advantage of the flexibility that an approved state may
exercise. Such flexibility will reduce, not increase, compliance costs
for the private sector. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The Agency recognizes that small governments may own and/
or operate TSDFs that will become subject to the requirements of an
approved state hazardous waste program. However, such small governments
which own and/or operate TSDFs are already subject to the requirements
in 40 CFR parts 264, 265 and 270. Once EPA authorizes a state to
administer its own hazardous waste program and any revisions to that
program, these same small governments will be able to own and operate
their TSDFs with increased levels of flexibility provided under the
approved State program.
Authority: This notice is issued under the authority of Sections
2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended
42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Dated: July 6, 1995.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-17479 Filed 7-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P