[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 159 (Thursday, August 16, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43054-43064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-20262]
[[Page 43053]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 261
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2001 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 43054]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-7025-3]
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 Eastman Chemical Corporation--Texas Operations
(Eastman Chemical) to exclude from hazardous waste control (or delist)
a certain solid waste. This final rule responds to the petition
submitted by Eastman Chemical to delist the dewatered wastewater
treatment sludge 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 dewatered wastewater treatment sludge
generated at Eastman Chemical's Longview, 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: August 16, 2001.
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-
00-TXDEL-TXEASTMAN''. 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 Eastman Chemical manage the waste if it is delisted?
E. When is the final delisting exclusion effective?
F. How does this final rule 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 waste did Eastman Chemical petition EPA to delist?
B. How much waste did Eastman Chemical propose to delist?
C. How did Eastman Chemical 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. Request for clarification of preamble language and provisions
in Table 1 of Appendix IX of Part 261.
C. Comments on the Delisting Risk Assessment Software.
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?
The EPA is finalizing:
(1) the decision to grant Eastman's petition to have its wastewater
treatment sludge excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a
hazardous waste, subject to certain continued verification and
monitoring conditions; and
(2) to use the Delisting Risk Assessment Software 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 December 4, 2000 to
exclude the Eastman Chemical waste from the lists of hazardous wastes
under Secs. 261.31 and 261.32 (see 65 FR 75637, December 4, 2000)
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Delisting?
Eastman's petition requests a delisting for listed hazardous
wastes. Eastman does not believe that the petitioned waste meets the
criteria for which EPA listed it. Eastman also believes no additional
constituents or factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA's
review of this petition included consideration of the original listing
criteria, and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42
U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)-(4). In making the final
delisting determination, EPA evaluated the petitioned waste against the
listing criteria and factors cited in Secs. 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3).
Based on this review, the EPA agrees with the petitioner that the waste
is nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. (If the
EPA had found, based on this review, that the waste remained hazardous
based on the factors for which the waste were originally listed, EPA
would have proposed to deny the petition.) The EPA evaluated the waste
with respect to other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a
reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors could cause
the waste to be hazardous. The EPA considered whether the waste is
acutely toxic, the concentration of the constituents in the waste,
their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in
the environment once released from the waste, plausible and specific
types of management of the petitioned waste, the quantities of waste
generated, and waste variability. The EPA believes that the petitioned
waste does not meet these criteria. EPA's final decision to delist
waste from Eastman's facility is based on the information submitted in
support of this rule, i.e., descriptions of the waste water treatment
system, incinerator, and analytical data from the Longview facility.
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, Appendix IX and
the conditions contained herein are satisfied. The maximum annual
volume of the dewatered wastewater treatment sludge is 82,100 cubic
yards.
D. How Will Eastman Chemical Manage the Waste if It Is Delisted?
Eastman currently disposes of the petitioned waste (wastewater
treatment sludge) generated at its facility in an on-site, state
permitted solid waste landfill after the sludge has been incinerated.
The ash from the incineration process was delisted by EPA in June 1996.
As a delisted material, it will meet the criteria for disposal in a
Subtitle D landfill without incineration.
The incinerator is a RCRA Subtitle C regulated unit permitted by
the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
[[Page 43055]]
Commission. This final decision will not affect the current regulatory
controls on the incineration unit.
E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion Effective?
This rule is effective August 16, 2001. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended Section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the
case here because this rule reduces, 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 Final Rule Affect States?
Because EPA is issuing this 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.
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 Eastman
Chemical transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any
State with delisting authorization, Eastman Chemical 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 Eastman Chemical Petition EPA To Delist?
On February 4, 2000, Eastman petitioned the EPA to exclude from the
lists of hazardous waste contained in Secs. 261.31 and 261.32, a waste
by-product (dewatered sludge from the wastewater treatment plant) which
falls under the classification of listed waste because of the ``derived
from'' rule in RCRA 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i). Specifically, in its
petition, Eastman Chemical Company, Texas Operations, located in
Longview, Texas, requested that EPA grant an exclusion for 82,100 cubic
yards per year of dewatered sludge resulting from its hazardous waste
treatment process. The resulting waste is listed, in accordance with
Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(i) (i.e., the ``derived from'' rule). The waste codes
of the constituents of concern are EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F001, F002,
F003, F005, K009, K010, U001, U002, U028, U031, U069, U088, U112, U115,
U117, U122, U140, U147, U154, U159, U161, U220, U226, U239 and U359.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F001--Spent halogented Tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride,
solvents used in degreasing. trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride,
chlorinated fluorocarbons
F002--Spent halogented Tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride,
solvents. trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane,
chlorobenzene, 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-
trichlorofluoroethane, ortho-
dichlorobenzene, trichlorofluoromethane
F003--Spent non-halogented Not applicable
solvents.
F005--Spent non-halogented Toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon
solvents. disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine, 2-
ethoxyethanol, benzene, 2-nitropropane
K009--Distillation bottoms Chloroform, formaldehyde, methylene
from the production of chloride, methyl chloride, paraldehyde,
acetaldehyde from ethylene. formic acid
K010--Distillation side cuts Chloroform, formaldehyde, methylene
from the production of chloride, methyl chloride, paraldehyde,
acetaldehyde from ethylene. formic acid, chloroacetaldehyde
U001......................... Acetaldehyde
U002......................... Acetone
U028......................... Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
U031......................... n-Butyl alcohol
U069......................... Dibutyl phthalate
[[Page 43056]]
U088......................... Di-ethyl phthalate
U112......................... Ethyl acetate
U115......................... Ethylene Oxide
U117......................... Ethyl ether
U122......................... Formaldehyde
U140......................... Isobutyl alcohol
U147......................... Maleic anhydride
U154......................... Methanol
U159......................... Methyl ethyl ketone
U161......................... Methyl isobutyl ketone
U220......................... Toluene
U226......................... 1,1,1 Trichloroethane (Methyl chloroform)
U239......................... Xylene
U359......................... Ethylene Glycol monoethyl ether
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. How Much Waste Did Eastman Chemical Propose To Delist?
Specifically, in its petition, Eastman Chemical requested that EPA
grant a standard exclusion for 82,100 cubic yards of dewatered
wastewater treatment sludge generated per calender year.
C. How Did Eastman Chemical Sample and Analyze the Waste Data in This
Petition?
To support its petition, Eastman submitted:
(1) descriptions of its waste water treatment system 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 using multiple pH
extraction fluids;
(8) information and results from testing of the fluidized bed
incinerator's compliance testing and
(9) results from oil and grease analysis.
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Who Submitted Comments on the Proposed Rule?
The EPA received public comments on December 4, 2000, proposal from
three interested parties, General Motors, Delphi Automotive, and
Eastman Chemical Company.
B. Request for Clarification of Preamble Language and Provisions in
Table 1 of Appendix IX of Part 261.
Eastman comments that the language in the preamble of the rules may be
interpreted more strictly than the language in the exclusion.
For purposes of compliance with the exclusion in Table 1 of
Appendix 1 of part 261, if Eastman significantly changes the process
which generate(s) the waste(s) and which may or could affect the
composition or type waste(s) generated as established under Condition
(1) (by illustration, but not limitation, change in equipment or
operating conditions of the treatment process). Eastman must (A) notify
the EPA in writing of the change and (B) may no longer handle or manage
the waste generated from the new process as nonhazardous until Eastman
has demonstrated through testing the waste meets the delisting levels
set in Condition (1) and (C) Eastman has received written approval to
begin managing the wastes as non-hazardous from EPA. The Agency will
revise Condition 4 of Table 1 of Appendix IX of part 261 to reflect
this change.
Eastman also comments that the text in Item 1 of Table 1 could be
misinterpreted.
There is a typo in Item 1 of Table 1 (65 FR 75649, December 4,
2000). The delisting level of 2-butanone is listed as 42.8 but should
be 48.2 in accordance with Table III of the preamble. The Agency has
rechecked the values from the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS)
and notes the correct concentration limit is 42.8 mg/l for 2-butanone.
C. Comments on the Delisting Risk Assessment Software
Delphi Automotive generally supports the Eastman Chemical Company's
Delisting Petition to delist its sludge but has extensive comments on
the Delisting Risk Assessment Software. Delphi comments that the ease
of use and simplicity for inputting two variables into the model has
resulted in a model that is not designed to be a site-specific model
but rather is waste generator specific. Hence, any site specific
factors such as hydrogeology, climate, ecology, population density,
etc. cannot be incorporated as modifiers of release or risk estimates.
This leaves the model inflexible, not representative, and leads to an
overestimation of releases and risk. Delphi goes on to identify
concerns and questions regarding the Delisting Risk Assessment model.
Delphi and GM list their concerns in the areas of (1) assumptions
regarding the landfill; minimal cover; criteria applied regarding risk
levels; the TCLP; unlikely risk scenarios; undocumented sensitivity
analysis; issues surrounding Nickel; and notice and review issues.
Information on the Risk and Hazard Assessment can be found in
Chapter 4 of the DTSD. A discussion of criteria and the method for
quantifying of risk is provided in Chapter 4.
The Delisting Program in its history has never focused on site-
specific conditions. It has since its inception been a program
specifically for waste generators. A review of the 40 CFR 260.22
indicates that these are petitions to amend part 261 to exclude a waste
produced at a particular facility. The Agency is not currently using
the model to predict site-specific results. Since disposal of the
delisted waste may occur at any landfill in the United States, site-
specific considerations are not usually given. The DRAS model is based
on
[[Page 43057]]
national averages of the site specific factors and is intended to model
a reasonable worst case scenario for disposal.
The Agency continues to review chemical-specific parameter data.
Where appropriate, these data will be incorporated into the DRAS
analyses. However, as explained above, in delisting analyses, site
specific characteristics (beyond waste constituent concentration and
volume) are not incorporated into analyses. Default values are given
for many parameters used in risk. The Agency can not fully evaluate how
release mechanisms and exposure scenarios may be impacted because the
final disposal location remains undefined. See Tenneco Automotive
Proposed Rule, 66 FR 24088, May 11, 2001 and the proposed Rule for
Bekaert Steel Corporation in Rogers, AR, 61 FR 32748, June 25, 1996.
Delphi comments that the DRAS assumes that landfill is unlined and that
leaching occurs from the beginning which is counter to performance
standard and use of liners, covers & slurry walls. The assumption of no
liner is not consistent with CMTP which assumes a liner. The DRAS model
should allow for the option of including a liner and should use
Subtitle D landfill characteristics.
There are existing solid waste landfills which have no liner. Over
time, liners also fail, delistings do not currently have an expiration
date, therefore it is reasonable to consider scenarios for liner
failure or that no liner exists. After a delisting has been granted,
the Agency does not designate a specific landfill where the waste may
be disposed. Therefore, the Agency has assumed a reasonable worst case
scenario of no liner.
The DRAS assumes minimal cover which increases volatilization and
particulate emission estimates which may not be reasonable.
Since disposal of a delisted material may occur in any unauthorized
State, we must evaluate whether a State may or may not have regulatory
requirements for daily cover. Regulations requiring daily cover on
municipal landfills do not necessarily apply to industrial solid waste
landfills. Furthermore, violations do occur. The worst case scenario
must consider that the minimal requirements for daily cover exists.
General Motors and Delphi comments that the terms used in the DRAS
should be more clearly defined. Does the term Cw for waste
contamination account for the total mass of contamination in the waste
or only that portion that may enter the aqueous phase and be
transported into the unsaturated zone and/or the leachable portion?
All terms and equations used in the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS) program are discussed in the Delisting Technical
Support Document (DTSD). All abbreviations, acronyms, and variables are
listed in Chapter 1, pages x-xx of the DTSD. The DTSD is updated to
reflect revisions and modifications to risk algorithms and methodology.
The Agency encourages all users and reviewers to comment on the
technical support documentation and continues to improve the clarity
and transparency of the DTSD. The term Cw is not used in the document.
Without specific information to the page location/screen location of
the term referenced in the question above, no further response can be
provided.
Does a Hazard Index of greater than 1 mean that the waste cannot be
delisted?
A Hazard Index (HI) of 1 does not mean that the waste cannot be
delisted, but that a more thorough evaluation of the waste will be
necessary. In cases where the HI exceeds one for the entire waste, the
Agency will then go on to evaluate the target organ for the critical
effect of those chemicals contributing to the total HI. In some cases,
the hazards associated with various chemicals in the waste result from
effects to the same target organ, and are indeed additive. In other
cases, the hazards of different chemicals impact different target
organs, and are not additive, in which case the HI is lowered
accordingly. The DRAS automatically assumes the conservative approach;
summing all hazards to calculate the HI.
What criteria determine whether the allowable leachate concentration is
set by SDWA MCL, DRAS calculation, treatment technology or toxicity
characteristic level? Are some levels below background?
The allowable level is the most conservative of the DRAS
calculations, a calculation based on the Safe Drinking Water Act
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) or the toxicity characteristic level.
Technology based treatment standards are not considered. The exception
to this is the level for arsenic which is frequently calculated based
on the concentration allowed by the MCL.
Does EPA policy require that MCL or SW criteria be met? Does this
policy apply at all downgradient distances or just those corresponding
to the DAF?
Groundwater must meet MCL criteria but not surface water criteria.
The DAF is used to calculate the concentration in the groundwater at a
well a set distance downgradient. This distance was based on the
results of a survey which identified the distance to the closest
drinking water wells located near solid waste landfills throughout the
country.
The pH of a landfill is generally higher than the pH of the extraction
fluid used in the TCLP which affects the leachability of the metals.
The leachability of this waste was measured using three different
extraction fluids representing a range of pH values. The pH values
evaluated in this petition ranged from pH 4.93, 7.0, and 10.1. This is
a fairly new piece of information requested by the Agency to evaluate
whether the waste leachability will be significantly affected by
changes in the pH environment.
The duration of leaching 18 min or 18 hr. may over or underestimate the
leachability of some constituents. The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) does not account for variations in time to equilibrium
for different species. The TCLP under predicts the maximum
concentration of some anions and does not account for a variety of
processes that can affect leachate quality, quantity and migration.
For regulatory purposes, the TCLP must be performed in 18
2 hours. Eighteen hours is theoretically the residence
time the aqueous phase remains in contact with the solid phase as it
percolates through the waste in a landfill scenario. Assuming the data
are being used for other purposes there is still no logical basis for
decreasing the leaching time, since any lesser leaching time will
generally under estimate the potential constituent concentrations.
The Agency should verify if the TCLP accounts for Dissolved Oxygen
Content (DOC) in leachate which affects mobility of metals in the
aquifer.
The TCLP does not account for site-specific conditions such as
conductivity, pH, dissolved oxygen, and total dissolved solids. It is
to be anticipated that no test methodology will be universally
appropriate in all circumstances and will be varied based upon discrete
site-specific conditions as was anticipated by the rule promulgating
revisions to the TCLP. See, 55 FR 11798 (March 29, 1990) and
[[Page 43058]]
the Reynolds Metals Delisting Repeal 62 FR 41005 (July 31, 1997).
It may be appropriate for the Agency to consider data from the SPLP.
The Agency would consider any additional data that the petitioner
chooses to submit. At this time the Agency requires leach testing for
stabilized waste at 3 different pHs. The Agency also evaluates data
from the Multiple Extraction Procedure (MEP). During the development of
the Sampling and Analysis Plan for this delisting petition, the Agency
and petitioner discussed which analytical methods were to be used and
the approach for adequate characterization of the waste. The TCLP and
testing at 3 different pHs were deemed appropriate analyses for
characterizing this waste.
Several assumptions used in the DRAS model are unlikely and
unreasonable: (1) A receptor lives and works at a single location 100 m
downgradient and is exposed 350 days/yr; (2) Individuals are exposed to
the 90th percentile level for all paths; (3) All media flow toward the
receptor; (4) The landfill volume and conditions from 1987 is still
valid; (5) The waste is placed uniformly at great depth over the whole
landfill; (6) Only the most sensitive pathway for each constituent is
selected which is an unlikely scenario; (7) First order decay applies
although processes of oxidation, hydrolysis and biodegredation are not
considered separately; (8) Transformation rate may not be reasonable
for biological processes; (9) Fate and leaching estimates should
include Kow, pKa, Henry's Law and potential for biological
transformation; (10) All streams are fishable and representative; and
(11) Nickel has a fish BCF of 307 which is unsupported by peer review
publications and EPA's own documents. The DRAS model is intended to
model a reasonable worst case model and is based on national averages
of these factors. This is the same assumption used for the EPACML.
The DRAS employs risk assessment default parameters that are
accepted throughout the Agency in risk analyses (i.e., residential
exposure @ 350 days/yr, selection of the 90th percentile). These
default standards are described and listed in Appendix A of the DTSD.
The DRAS does employ a conservative approach to exposure assessment
by assuming the receptor may be exposed to both the most sensitive
groundwater pathway and the most sensitive surface exposure pathway. To
maximize the impact of the waste, the model assumes uniform placement
of the waste and selects the most sensitive pathway for each
constituent. The Agency has no way of knowing that this situation will
not occur and therefore deems it prudent to protect for this condition
by adding risks. Again, the Agency has no way of knowing the direction
of media flow and must assume that all media flow may move toward the
receptor. The Agency has no data to indicate that the landfill volume
data and other data from the 1987 landfill survey report is not valid.
When updated data are available, they will be incorporated into the
analyses.
The groundwater fate and transport model used by the Agency to
determine first order decay and other processes is the EPA's Composite
Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation Products (EPACMTP).
This model has been peer reviewed and received an excellent review from
the Science Advisory Board (SAB). EPA has proposed use of this SAB-
reviewed model and no convincing comments to the contrary have been
received. The bioconcentration factor (BCF) for nickel has been revised
from 307 to 78. The revised nickel BCF will be incorporated into the
upcoming DRAS version 2.0.
GM and Delphi both comment that the model does not account for the
uncertainty or sensitivity estimate on this exposure. Without a
sensitivity analysis it is impossible to determine if a single pathway
drives the risk. If data for most sensitive parameter is uncertain or
limited, confidence in the result will be poor.
The DRAS provides the forward-calculated risk level and back-
calculated allowable waste concentration for each exposure pathway,
thereby permitting the user to determine which pathway drives the risk
for a given chemical. These analyses are currently provided for the
user by the DRAS program on the Chemical-Specific Results screen.
What is the effect of assuming a DAF of 18?
The Dilution Attenuation Factor (DAF) of 18 is a conservative DAF
determined by the EPACMTP fate and transport model for the landfill
waste management scenario. The DAF of 18 represents the class of
organic chemicals for non-degrading, non-sorbing, characteristics. When
creating a chemical to add to the DRAS chemical library for use in DRAS
analyses, we recommend using a conservative value.
What is the sensitivity of using the 50th percentile on release and
risk estimates?
The DRAS assessment uses high end estimates from the 90th
percentile to select the best available data for each parameter. As
mentioned in 65 FR 58019 (September 27, 2000), some EPA risk
assessments may select the 50th percentile of the best available to
represent typical values. The DRAS assessment always defaults to high-
end values.
The BCF of 307 for nickel in fish is unsupported in EPA's own
documents. Nickel does not bioaccumulate due to incomplete adsorption
and rapid excretion. Literature values are much less. BCF should not be
used for predicting chronic toxicity. Some organs can regulate internal
concentrations. Ni+2, not the parent, is persistent and
bioavailable.
The Bioconcentration Factor (BCF) for nickel has been revised to 78
and will be incorporated into DRAS version 2.0. This value is based on
the geometric mean of 3 laboratory values (100, 100, 47). Further
background on the studies used to derive these BCFs is available in the
document entitled ``Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities'' (EPA530-D-99-001). However,
neither BCF value (307 or 78) will have an impact on the delisting
levels for nickel as the delisting level is driven by the groundwater
ingestion pathway. In the DRAS risk analyses, nickel does not
constitute an appreciable risk via surface pathways including fish
ingestion in which the BCF is used to calculate risk.
How does the model distinguish metals that are important for some
animals?
Delisting levels for metals far exceed any micronutrient levels.
These micronutrient levels are accounted for in the delisting levels
but the excess of the delisting level is not significant enough to pose
a risk to the animals.
Current science suggests that the skin and respiratory tract are
targets for soluble nickel salts yet the model literature states that
the target organs and critical effects are decreased organ and or body
weights.
The oral Reference Dose (RfD) is based on the assumption that
thresholds exist for certain toxic effects such as cellular necrosis.
It is expressed in units of mg/kg-day. Ambrose, et al. in ``Long-term
Toxicologic Assessment of Nickel in Rats and Dogs'' \1\ reported the
results of a 2-year feeding study using rats given 0, 100, 1000 or 2500
ppm nickel (estimated as 0, 5, 50 and 125 mg Ni/
[[Page 43059]]
kg bw) in the diet. Clinical signs of toxicity, such as lethargy,
ataxia, irregular breathing, cool body temperature, salivation and
discolored extremities, were seen primarily in the 100 mg/kg/day group;
these signs were less severe in the 35 mg/kg/day group. Based on the
results obtained in this study, the 5 mg/kg/day nickel dose was a ``no
observed adverse effect levels'' (NOAEL), whereas 35 mg/kg/day was a
``lowest observed adverse effects levels'' (LOAEL) for decreased body
and organ weights. For further information, please refer to the
Agency's IRIS database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ambrose, A.M., P.S. Larson, J.R. Borzelleca and G.R.
Hennigar, Jr. 1976. Long-term toxicologic Assessment of Nickel in
Rats and Dogs. J. Food Sci. Technol. 13: 181-187.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In aquatic environs, much of the nickel present as ionic or stable
organic complexes. Hence much of the nickel is insoluble with minimal
bioavailability. Also, soil which contains high organic matter will
limit nickel's mobility. Are maximum permissible levels set below
background? Background levels for nickel are approximately 3.3 ppb
freshwater; 2.1 ppb groundwater; 4 to 30 mg/kg soil.
The Agency agrees that some nickel may be insoluble, have minimal
bioavailability, and have mobility dependent on organic content.
However as explained above, in delisting analyses, site specific
characteristics (beyond waste constituent concentration and volume) are
not incorporated into analyses. Default values are given for many
parameters used in risk analyses including the organic content of
fishable waters. The Agency has no way of knowing what streams may be
impacted and, therefore, establishes a conservative estimate of
pertinent variables.
The DRAS is complex and EPA must explain the models and risk processes
used in establishing regulatory limits.
Attached to the Delisting Risk Assessment Software is a Technical
Support Document which explains the risk algorithms and documentation
of the decisions made in development of the model. Publication costs
prohibit the inclusion of all this information into the Federal
Register notice but it is readily available in both the Technical
Support Document and at the Region 6 Delisting page (www.epa.gov/earth1/r6/pd-o/pd-o.htm). However, the Agency believes that the
Delisting Risk Assessment Software is no more complex than use of the
EPACML for delisting, just because the calculations have been
computerized make them no more difficult to understand than the EPACML.
Similar regression models were developed for the DRAS. The risk
pathways for surface water and air volatilization are evaluated by the
same equations used previously in the delisting program. And finally,
the pathways for showering and dermal contact are equations which are
commonly used in risk assessments performed for cleanups and site
assessments under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) commonly known as Superfund and
other programs.
EPA should confirm stoichiometry, speciation charge, formula weight,
equilibrium and enthalpy estimates with regard to metal and organic
ligands as risks from metal ion concentrations may be overestimated.
The Agency continues to review chemical-specific parameter data.
Where appropriate, these data will be incorporated into the DRAS
analyses. Currently, MINTEQA2 is used in the EPACMTP. As refinements to
metals speciation with regards to groundwater fate and transport become
available, they will be incorporated into the EPACMTP model. However,
as explained above, in delisting analyses, site specific
characteristics (beyond waste constituent concentration and volume) are
not incorporated into analyses. Default values are given for many
parameters used in risk. The Agency has no way of knowing how release
mechanisms and exposure scenarios may be impacted given the final
disposal location remains undefined.
The model may estimate fate and transport concentration that exceed
water solubility.
It is assumed that this comment refers to the groundwater fate and
transport model used by DRAS (i.e., the EPACMTP). Indeed, if waste
concentration exceeds soil saturation, free form conditions may occur
and the assumptions of the EPACMTP may be compromised. Therefore, soil
saturation values have been incorporated into DRAS and the program will
notify the user if a waste concentrations exceed soil saturation
concentrations. Ambient water concentrations may be influenced by more
than chemical solubility (e.g., organic content). Total concentrations
that exceed 1% are also highlighted and flagged within the DRAS so that
further evaluation can be performed.
The use of the NOAEL in Rfd calculations has been challenged by the
Science Advisory Board (SAB). The dose response relationship and the
consistency in response level are not identified. Regulatory limits are
based more on experimental exposure than on biological relevance.
The EPA still uses the no observed adverse effect levels (NOAEL) in
the development of a reference dose (RfD). Until such time that the
Agency redefines RfD methodology, delisting will continue to determine
hazards based on RfDs recommended by EPA's IRIS (Integrated Risk
Information System) database. The Agency continues to support the use
of RfDs in delisting determinations in such a manner consistent with
EPA risk assessment methodology. The EPA risk assessors and EPA's
Office of Research and Development scientists who have peer reviewed
the DRAS have not questioned the method in which RfDs are employed in
the DRAS analyses.
GM and Delphi both comment that model should be peer reviewed and
the public should have the formal opportunity to provide comments.
The model has been peer reviewed by EPA risk assessors and EPA's
Office of Research and Development scientists. The public has the
opportunity to comment on the DRAS model each time a delisting is
proposed which is based on the DRAS model. The Agency is currently
using the same level of public review used by the delisting program in
the use of new models. The same notice procedures were provided for the
use of the EPA Composite Model for Landfills in 1991. The model's use
as modified for the delisting program was promulgated in conjunction
with its use in the Reynolds Metals Delisting petition See, 56 FR 32993
(July 18, 1991).
GM summarizes its comments on the DRAS by stating that (1) EPA is
proposing significant changes to the methodology it uses to evaluate
delisting petitions. It appears the changes would apply to all future
delisting petitions. (2) The proposed changes are complex. Not enough
information has been provided about the various assumptions,
methodologies, and interactions between variables used by EPA in its
model. (3) It appears that the proposed changes would apply in all EPA
Regions, (4) The proposed changes may include elements of the still-
draft, unpromulgated, and controversial HWIR waste model. It is
inappropriate and contrary to law and the Administrative Procedures Act
to use a model prior to
[[Page 43060]]
public notice and comment. (5) No Federal Register notice has been
given to clearly indicate the EPA plans to change the way it reviews
and evaluates delisting petitions. Instead, references to the changes
in the model have been made as part of proposals to delist specific
waste streams. (6) The model should be peer reviewed and if EPA is
changing the model it uses to evaluate delisting petitions (from the
EPACML to the DRAS model) USEPA should provide specific and clear
public notification of this intent. The risk assessment methodology for
delisting that has been used since 1991 should still apply until public
review period is completed.
The EPA is following the same notice provided for changing from the
VHS model to the EPA Composite Model for Landfills (EPACML). See 56 FR
32993, July 18, 1991. The public has the opportunity to comment on the
DRAS model each time a delisting is proposed which is based on the DRAS
model. General Motors has not stated any reason why the DRAS model is
not appropriate for use in evaluating the risk associated with the
Tenneco Delisting.
General Motors states that use of model with public review and
comment is a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and law.
Opportunity for public review and comment is provided for each
delisting petition. Comments are requested for each delisting decision
regarding the decision to delist the waste and use of a model to assess
the risk posed to human health and the environment. Each time the model
is used, just as with the use of the EPACML, the public and interested
stakeholders can comment on the appropriateness of the use. In fact,
each proposed rule for approving a delisting proposes the use of a
model in the evaluation of risk and asks for comment. Examples can be
seen in the Federal Register for the EPACML as well as the DRAS. See,
56 FR 32993, (July 18, 1991), 64 FR 44867 (August 18, 1999), and 65 FR
75641, (December 4, 2000). Any petitioner or interested party may
suggest more appropriate evaluation tools for predicting risk. Thus,
EPA believes that adequate public notice has been provided and the APA
has not been violated.
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 this 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 Office of Management and
Budget (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 cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. 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 this final 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 final 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. 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
[[Page 43061]]
the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office of Management
and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected state, local, and tribal governments, the
nature of their concerns, copies of written communications from the
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, 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.'' This 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. This
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) if 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.
Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous Waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: July 27, 2001.
Stephen Gilrein,
Acting Director of 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, and 6938.
2. In Table 1, 2, and 3 of Appendix IX, part 261 add the following
waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
Appendix IX--Wastes Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and 260.22
Table 1.--Waste Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Eastman Chemical Company............. Longview, Texas........ Wastewater treatment sludge, (at a maximum
generation of 82,100 cubic yards per calendar
year) generated by Eastman (EPA Hazardous Waste
Nos. F001, F002, F003, F005 generated at
Eastman when disposed of in a Subtitle D
landfill.
Eastman must implement a testing program that
meets the following conditions for the
exclusion to be valid:
(1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations for the
following constituents must not exceed the
following levels (mg/l). For the wastewater
treatment sludge constituents must be measured
in the waste leachate by the method specified
in 40 CFR 261.24. Wastewater treatment sludge:
(i) Inorganic Constituents: Antimony-0.0515;
Barium-7.30; Cobalt-2.25; Chromium-5.0; Lead-
5.0; Mercury-0.0015; Nickel-2.83; Selenium-
0.22; Silver-0.384; Vanadium-2.11; Zinc-28.0
[[Page 43062]]
(ii) Organic Constituents: Acenaphthene-1.25;
Acetone--7.13; bis(2-ethylhexylphthalate--0.28;
2-butanone--42.8; Chloroform--0.0099; Fluorene--
0.55; Methanol-35.7; Methylene Chloride--0.486;
naphthalene-0.0321.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling: If the
concentrations of the sludge exceed the levels
provided in Condition 1, then the sludge must
be treated in the Fluidized Bed Incinerator
(FBI) and meet the requirements of that
September 25, 1996 delisting exclusion to be
non-hazardous (as FBI ash). If the sludge meets
the delisting levels provided in Condition 1,
then it's non-hazardous (as sludge). If the
waste water treatment sludge is not managed in
the manner above, Eastman must manage it in
accordance with applicable RCRA Subtitle C
requirements. If the levels of constituents
measured in the samples of the waste water
treatment sludge 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. During the verification period,
Eastman must manage the waste in the FBI
incinerator prior to disposal.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements: Eastman
must perform sample collection and analyses,
including quality control procedures, according
to SW-846 methodologies. After completion of
the initial verification period, Eastman may
replace the testing required in Condition
(3)(A) with the testing required in Condition
(3)(B). Eastman must continue to test as
specified in Condition (3)(A) until and unless
notified by EPA in writing that testing in
Condition (3)(A) may be replaced by Condition
(3)(B).
(A) Initial Verification Testing: At quarterly
intervals for one year after the final
exclusion is granted, Eastman must collect and
analyze composites of the wastewater treatment
sludge for constituents listed in Condition
(1).
(B) Subsequent Verification Testing: Following
termination of the quarterly testing, Eastman
must continue to test a representative
composite sample for all constituents listed in
Condition (1) on an annual basis (no later than
twelve months after the final exclusion).
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions. If Eastman
significantly changes the process which
generate(s) the waste(s) and which may or could
affect the composition or type of waste(s)
generated as established under Condition (1)
(by illustration, but not limitation, change in
equipment or operating conditions of the
treatment process or generation of volumes in
excess 82,100 cubic yards of waste annually),
Eastman must (A) notify the EPA in writing of
the change and (B) may no longer handle or
manage the waste generated from the new process
as nonhazardous until Eastman has demonstrated
through testing the waste meets the delisting
levels set in Condition (1) and (C) Eastman has
received written approval to begin managing the
wastes as non-hazardous from EPA.
(5) Data Submittals. Eastman must submit or
maintain, as applicable, the information
described below. If Eastman 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 Condition (6).
Eastman must:
(A) Submit the data obtained through Condition
(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 Condition (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:
(i) 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.
[[Page 43063]]
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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, Eastman 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 Condition
(1), Eastman 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 Eastman fails to submit the information
described in Conditions (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 Condition (6)(D) or
(if no information is presented under Condition
(6)(D)) the initial receipt of information
described in Conditions (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. Eastman must do
following before transporting the delisted
waste off-site: Failure to provide this
notification will result in a violation of the
delisting petition and a possible revocation of
the exclusion.
(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.--Waste Excluded From Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Eastman Chemical Company............. Longview, Texas........ Wastewater treatment sludge, (at a maximum
generation of 82,100 cubic yards per calendar
year) (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K009, K010)
generated at Eastman. Eastman must implement
the testing program described in Table 1. Waste
Excluded From Non-Specific Sources for the
petition to be valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 43064]]
Table 3.--Waste Excluded From Commercial Chemical Products, Off Specification Species, Container Residues, and
Soil Residues Thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Eastman Chemical Company............. Longview, Texas........ Wastewater treatment sludge, (at a maximum
generation of 82,100 cubic yards per calendar
year) generated by Eastman (EPA Hazardous Waste
Nos. U001, U002, U028, U031, U069, U088, U112,
U115, U117, U122, U140, U147, U154, U159, U161,
U220, U226, U239, U359). Eastman must implement
the testing program described in Table 1. Waste
Excluded From Non-Specific Sources for the
petition to be valid.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 01-20262 Filed 8-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P