[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8874-8880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-4231]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-6541-1]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is granting a petition submitted by Chaparral Steel
Midlothian, L.P.(Chaparral Steel) to exclude from hazardous waste
control (or delist) a certain solid waste. This action responds to the
petition submitted by Chaparral Steel Midlothian, L.P., to delist the
leachate from its Landfill No. 3 containing K061 electric arc furnace
dust and minor amounts of K061 wastewater from various plant operations
including storm water from the baghouse floor areas and the pelletizer
sump on a ``generator specific'' basis from the lists of hazardous
waste.
After careful analysis, we have concluded that the petitioned waste
is
[[Page 8875]]
not hazardous waste when disposed of in the surface impoundments. This
exclusion applies to leachate from Landfill No. 3 containing K061
electric arc furnace dust and minor amounts of K061 wastewater at
Chaparral Steel's Midlothian, 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 surface impoundments but imposes testing
conditions to ensure that the future-generated wastes remain qualified
for delisting.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 23, 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-CHAPARRAL.'' 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
notice, contact David Vogler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, (214) 665-7428.
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 Chaparral Steel 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 Petition?
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 Chaparral Steel Petition EPA to Delist?
B. How Much Waste did Chaparral Steel Propose to Delist?
C. How did Chaparral Steel 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. Is the Delisting of Chaparral Steel's Waste a Threat to
Ground Water?
C. Is the Delisting of Chaparral Steel's Waste a Threat to
Surface Water?
D. Are There Any Typographical and Data Transfer Errors From the
Proposed Delisting Publication?
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 Advancement Act
I. Overview Information
A. What Action is EPA Finalizing?
The EPA is finalizing the decision to grant Chaparral Steel's
petition to have their leachate and minor amounts of waste water
excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a hazardous waste.
After evaluating the petition, EPA proposed, on August 24, 1999, to
exclude the Chaparral Steel waste from the lists of hazardous wastes
under Secs. 261.31 and 261.32 (see 64 FR 46166).
B. Why is EPA Approving This Delisting?
Chaparral Steel petitioned to exclude the landfill leachate and
other wastewaters because it does not believe that the petitioned waste
meets the criteria for which it was listed.
Chaparral Steel 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 notice, EPA
believes that Chaparral Steel's landfill leachate and other K061
wastewaters should be excluded from hazardous waste control. The EPA
therefore is granting a final exclusion to Chaparral Steel, located in
Midlothian, Texas, for its leachate from its Landfill No. 3 containing
K061 electric arc furnace dust and minor amounts of K061 wastewater
from various plant operations including storm water from the baghouse
floor areas and the pelletizer sump.
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 are met. The waste described
in the petition is leachate from Landfill No. 3 containing K061
electric arc furnace dust and minor amounts of K061 wastewater from
various plant operations including storm water from the baghouse floor
areas and the pelletizer sump.
D. How Will Chaparral Steel Manage the Waste if it is Delisted?
The leachate is currently sent to an offsite underground injection
well facility for disposal. Although management of the wastes covered
by this petition would not be subject to subtitle C jurisdiction upon
final promulgation of an exclusion, Chaparral Steel must ensure that
the onsite management of the delisted wastes is in accordance with the
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) rules and
regulations or the waste is delivered to an off-site storage,
treatment, or disposal facility, either which is permitted, licensed,
or registered by a State to manage municipal or industrial solid waste.
The facility would like to manage the waste in their onsite cooling
system of which cooling ponds are a part. The wastewater would be
substituted for some of the well water used for cooling purposes which
would help conserve that natural resource. In this case, the requested
change in waste management is subject to delisting by EPA and
subsequent waste management practices in accordance with TNRCC rules
and regulations.
E. When is the Final Delisting Exclusion Effective?
This rule is effective February 23, 2000. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended Section 3010(b) 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
[[Page 8876]]
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 Chaparral
Steel transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any
State with delisting authorization, Chaparral Steel 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 Secs. 261.31 and 261.32.
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 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 Chaparral Steel Petition EPA to Delist?
Chaparral Steel Midlothian, L.P., petitioned the EPA to exclude
from hazardous waste control leachate from its Landfill No. 3
containing K061 electric arc furnace dust and minor amounts of K061
wastewater from various plant operations including storm water from the
baghouse floor areas and the pelletizer sump. The listed constituents
of concern for K061 are chromium, lead, and cadmium.
B. How Much Waste did Chaparral Steel Propose to Delist?
Specifically, in its petition, Chaparral Steel requested that EPA
grant an exclusion for leachate from its Landfill No. 3 containing K061
electric arc furnace dust and minor amounts of K061 wastewater from
various plant operations including storm water from the baghouse floor
areas and the pelletizer sump in the amount of 2,500 cubic yards
(500,000 gallons) generated per calender year.
C. How did Chaparral Steel Sample and Analyze the Waste Data in This
Petition?
To support its petition, Chaparral submitted:
(1) Historical analytical data for the Electric Arc Furnace Dust
(K061), and leachate analytical data from their Landfill No. 3
containing the Electric Arc Furnace Dust, and analytical data for the
liquid from the K061 waste water storage tank;
(2) Analytical results of the total constituent list for 40 CFR
part 264, appendix IX volatiles, semivolatiles, metals (including
hexavalent chromium), pesticides, herbicides, polychlorinated
biphenyls, furans, and dioxins;
(3) Analytical results of the constituent list derived from
appendix IX for identified constituents;
(4) Analytical results for reactive sulfide;
(5) Analytical results for reactive cyanide;
(6) Test results for corrosivity by pH;
(7) Analytical results of samples from bench tests of treated
leachate/K061 wastewater; and
(8) Test results for oil and grease.
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Who Submitted Comments on the Proposed Rule?
i. One commenter supported the delisting but was concerned that the
rule implies that storm water from melt shop baghouse areas at similar
facilities would be required to be considered K061 waste water. The EPA
does not intend to imply that this would be the case. Chaparral Steel
removes its storm water from the baghouse area and places it in a tank
containing K061 leachate and manages the waste as K061. Other
generators must characterize their own storm water based on relevent
circumstances involved with the generation, management, and disposal of
the water.
ii. Two commenters from the same address submitted concerns that
their private ground water well and the creek on their property would
become contaminated because of the approval of the delisting. A public
hearing was requested by these two requestors but not granted.
B. Is the Delisting of Chaparral Steel's Waste a Threat to Ground
Water?
No, as explained in the proposed exclusion (delisting), EPA
concluded that the constituents in the raw leachate, with the exception
of lead, if released directly to the groundwater would not reach levels
of concern at a down gradient well. The EPA added as a condition or
requirement of delisting the waste that the maximum concentration level
of lead in the leachate could not exceed 0.69 mg/l. See 64 FR 46176.
The 0.69 mg/l concentration value is the Land Disposal Restriction
(LDR) value for lead. This concentration is below the health-based
value of 1.02 mg/l which is a value calculated for a theoretical down
gradient well. The more conservative value was selected as a delisting
limit.
Other assumptions made by EPA in the evaluation process were also
very conservative. The value for largest amount of leachate generated
on a per year basis was used in evaluation. Typically, the amount of
leachate generated on a yearly basis is much less than the maximum and
the amount generated is decreasing over time. Also, EPA evaluated the
waste at the highest concentrations found in analyzing the waste or
worst case concentrations. Actually, concentrations of constituents in
the waste are less if the average value is used for evaluation
purposes. If the leachate is added to the cooling system
[[Page 8877]]
as proposed by the facility, the concentrations of the constituents in
the leachate would be reduced by the well water in the approximately
eight million gallon cooling system. According to facility information,
nearly 240 million gallons of well water is added to the system
annually. The EPA conservatively evaluated a release of raw leachate to
the ground water and not the leachate diluted by the cooling system
water. The EPA also conservatively assumed a significant release of raw
leachate would occur. However, the proposed management scenario for the
raw leachate is in an above ground tank with secondary containment.
Therefore, it is very unlikely a significant release to the environment
would occur.
Because of the conservative assumptions made above (or reasonable
worst case scenario), EPA concludes that granting the delisting adds no
significant threat to contamination of ground water wells in general
even if not managed as proposed in the onsite cooling pond system. As
previously stated, although management of the wastes covered by this
petition would not be subject to subtitle C jurisdiction upon final
promulgation of an exclusion, Chaparral Steel must ensure that the
onsite management of the delisted wastes is in accordance with the
TNRCC rules and regulations or the waste is delivered to an off-site
storage, treatment, or disposal facility, either which is permitted,
licensed, or registered by a State to manage municipal or industrial
solid waste.
The EPA concludes that granting the delisting adds no significant
threat to the contamination of the ground water of the commenter's well
specifically. The commenter's well is about one mile away from the
cooling water ponds and 500 foot in depth. The soils and geologic
formations in the area have a low hydraulic conductivity. The
combination of the distance to the well, the depth to the well, and the
low hydraulic conductivity make it very unlikely that the commenter's
well can be contaminated from the delisted waste.
C. Is the Delisting of Chaparral Steel's Waste a Threat to Surface
Water?
No, the impact of the petitioned wastes via the surface water route
is not a threat. If the leachate is added to the cooling system and
associated holding ponds as proposed by the facility, an overflow is an
unlikely event and would not ever occur under reasonable circumstances.
A release to surface water would most potentially occur only if the
plant was shut down and there was a large rainfall event at the same
time. In the unlikely event of a release, the facility is required to
meet applicable storm water permit concentration levels to protect
human health and the environment.
Even though release to surface water is unlikely, EPA evaluated a
100-year, 24 hour rainfall event with the cooling ponds at no freeboard
capacity which are also unlikely events. Under normal conditions the
ponds would have enough additional capacity (freeboard) to catch all
precipitation without an overflow occurring. If such a worst case
scenario were to occur, calculations indicate that the concentrations
of the constituents of concern would be below drinking water criteria
and surface water criteria before reaching the stream at the facility's
outfall. See regulatory docket for ``Docket Report on Evaluation of
Contaminant Releases to Surface Water Resulting Form Chaparral Steel
Midlotian, L.P.'s, Petitioned Waste'' document. Because of these
reasons, EPA concludes that approving the delisting will not
significantly impact the stream at the facility's outfall nor at the
commenter's location which is approximately one mile downstream. The
delisting is protective of human health and the environment.
D. Are There Any Typographical and Data Transfer Errors From the
Proposed Delisting Publication?
The EPA is correcting the maximum organic total constituent
concentration values for 2-butanone and carbon disulfide found in Table
1. of the proposed exclusion (64 FR 46169, August 24, 1999). The value
for 2-butanone total constituent analysis for raw leachate (mg/l)
should be 0.005 and not 0.003. The value for carbon disulfide total
constituent analysis for treated leachate (mg/l) should be 0.005 and
not 0.005.
The EPA is also making a change in Paragraph (5) of the Table 2
language to be consistent with Paragraph (6). The sentence which states
``Failure to submit the required data within the specified time period
or maintain the required records on site for the specified time will be
considered by EPA, at its discretion, sufficient basis to revoke the
exclusion to the extent directed by EPA'' has been altered to read
``Failure to submit the required data within the specified time period
or maintain the required records on site for the specified time will be
considered by EPA, at its discretion, sufficient basis to reopen the
exclusion as described in Paragraph (6).''
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 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 record-keeping requirements associated
with this final 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
[[Page 8878]]
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. 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 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 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 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, 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
Under Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act, the Agency is directed 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 Act 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.
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).
[[Page 8879]]
Dated: February 2, 2000.
Carl E. Edlund,
Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is to be
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. In Table 2 of appendix IX of part 261 the following waste stream
is added in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and 260.22.
* * * * *
Table 2.--Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Chaparral Steel Midlothian, L.P Midlothian, Texas.............. Leachate from Landfill No. 3, storm water from
the baghouse area, and other K061 wastewaters
which have been pumped to tank storage (at a
maximum generation of 2500 cubic yards or
500,000 gallons per calender year) (EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K061) generated at
Chaparral Steel Midlothian, L.P., Midlothian,
Texas, and is managed as nonhazardous solid
waste after February 23, 2000.
Chaparral Steel must implement a testing
program that meets the following conditions
for the exclusion to be valid:
(1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations for
the constituent total lead in the
approximately 2,500 cubic yards (500,000
gallons) per calender year of raw leachate
from Landfill No. 3, storm water from the
baghouse area, and other K061 wastewaters
that is transferred from the storage tank to
nonhazardous management must not exceed 0.69
mg/l (ppm). Constituents must be measured in
the waste by the method specified in SW-846.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling: Chaparral
Steel must store as hazardous all leachate
waste from Landfill No. 3, storm water from
the bag house area, and other K061
wastewaters until verification testing as
specified in Condition (3), is completed and
valid analyses demonstrate that condition (1)
is satisfied. If the levels of constituents
measured in the samples of the waste do not
exceed the levels set forth in Condition (1),
then the waste is nonhazardous and may be
managed and disposed of in accordance with
all applicable solid waste regulations. If
constituent levels in a sample exceed the
delisting levels set in Condition (1), the
waste volume corresponding to this sample
must be treated until delisting levels are
met or returned to the original storage tank.
Treatment is designated as precipitation,
flocculation, and filtering in a wastewater
treatment system to remove metals from the
wastewater. Treatment residuals precipitated
will be designated as a hazardous waste. If
the delisting level cannot be met, then the
waste must be managed and disposed of in
accordance with subtitle C of RCRA.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements: Sample
collection and analyses, including quality
control procedures, must be performed
according to SW-846 methodologies. Chaparral
Steel must analyze one composite sample from
each batch of untreated wastewater
transferred from the hazardous waste storage
tank to non-hazardous waste management. Each
composited batch sample must be analyzed,
prior to non-hazardous management of the
waste in the batch represented by that
sample, for the constituent lead as listed in
Condition (1). Chaparral may treat the waste
as specified in Condition (2).
If EPA judges the treatment process to be
effective during the operating conditions
used during the initial verification testing,
Chaparral Steel may replace the testing
requirement in Condition (3)(A) with the
testing requirement in Condition (3)(B).
Chaparral must continue to test as specified
in (3)(A) until and unless notified by EPA or
designated authority that testing in
Condition (3)(A) may be replaced with by
Condition (3)(B).
(A) Initial Verification Testing:
Representative composite samples from the
first eight (8) full-scale treated batches of
wastewater from the K061 leachate/wastewater
storage tank must be analyzed for the
constituent lead as listed in Condition (1),
Chaparral must report to EPA the operational
and analytical test data, including quality
control information, obtained from these
initial full scale treatment batches within
90 days of the eighth treatment batch.
(B) Subsequent Verification Testing:
Following notification by EPA, Chaparral
Steel may substitute the testing conditions
in (3)(B) for (3)(A). Chaparral Steel must
analyze representative composite samples from
the treated full scale batches on an annual
basis. If delisting levels for any
constituent listed in Condition (1) are
exceeded in the annual sample, Chaparral must
reinstitute complete testing as required in
Condition (3)(A). As stated in Condition (3)
Chaparral must continue to test all batches
of untreated waste to determine if delisting
criteria are met before managing the
wastewater from the K061 tank as
nonhazardous.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If
Chaparral Steel significantly changes the
treatment process established under Condition
(3) (e.g., use of new treatment agents),
Chaparral Steel must notify the Agency in
writing. After written approval by EPA,
Chaparral Steel may handle the wastes
generated as non-hazardous, if the wastes
meet the delisting levels set in Condition
(1).
(5) Data Submittals: Records of operating
conditions and analytical data from Condition
(3) must be compiled, summarized, and
maintained on site for a minimum of five
years. These records and data must be
furnished upon request by EPA, or the State
of Texas, or both, and be made available for
inspection. Failure to submit the required
data within the specified time period or
maintain the required records on site for the
specified time will be considered by EPA, at
its discretion, sufficient basis to reopen
the exclusion as described in Paragraph (6).
All data must be accompanied by a signed copy
of the following certification statement to
attest to the truth and accuracy of the data
submitted:
[[Page 8880]]
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.
In the event that 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, Chaparral Steel 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) Based on the information described in
paragraphs (5), or (6)(A) and any other
information 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.
(C) 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 delegate's notice to present such
information.
(D) Following the receipt of information from
the facility described in paragraph (6)(C) or
(if no information is presented under
paragraph (6)(C)) the initial receipt of
information described in paragraph (5) or
(6)(A), 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
delegate's determination shall become
effective immediately, unless the Regional
Administrator or his delegate provides
otherwise.
(7) Notification Requirements: Chaparral
Steel must provide a one-time written
notification to any State Regulatory Agency
to which or through which the delisted waste
described above will be transported for
disposal at least 60 days prior to the
commencement of such activity. The one-time
written notification must be updated if the
delisted waste is shipped to a different
disposal facility. Failure to provide such a
notification will result in a violation of
the delisting petition and a possible
revocation of the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-4231 Filed 2-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P