Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 58315 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–23708 Filed 9–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2009–0312; SW FRL– 

9206–8] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Direct Final 

Exclusion 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a 

petition submitted by Eastman Chemical 

Company-Texas Operations (Eastman) 

to exclude (or delist) certain solid 

wastes generated by its Longview, 

Texas, facility from the lists of 

hazardous wastes. EPA used the 

Delisting Risk Assessment Software 

(DRAS) Version 3.0 in the evaluation of 

the impact of the petitioned waste on 

human health and the environment. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 23, 2010 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives relevant 

adverse comment by October 25, 2010. 

If adverse comment is received, EPA 

will publish a timely withdrawal of this 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

RCRA–2009–0312 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. E-mail: peace.michelle@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Michelle Peace, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 

6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Michelle Peace, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 

6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–RCRA–2009– 

0312. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

RCRA Branch, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Dallas, TX 75202. The hard copy of the 

RCRA regulatory docket for this 

proposed rule, EPA–R06–RCRA–2009– 

0312, is available for viewing from 8 

a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding Federal holidays. 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. EPA requests that you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The 

interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the office at least 24 

hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further technical information 

concerning this document or for 

appointments to view the docket or the 

Eastman facility petition, contact 

Michelle Peace, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Multimedia 

Planning and Permitting Division, 

RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 6PD–C, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, by 

calling (214) 665–7430 or by e-mail at 

peace.michelle@epa.gov. 

Your requests for a hearing must 

reach EPA by October 12, 2010. The 

request must contain the information 

described in 40 CFR 260.20(d) 

(hereinafter all sectional references are 

to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Eastman 

submitted a petition under 40 CFR 

260.20 and 260.22(a). Section 260.20 

allows any person to petition the 

Administrator to modify or revoke any 

provision of parts 260 through 266, 268 

and 273. Section 260.22 (a) specifically 

provides generators the opportunity to 

petition the Administrator to exclude a 

waste on a ‘‘generator specific’’ basis 

from the hazardous waste lists. 

The Agency bases its proposed 

decision to grant the petition on an 

evaluation of waste-specific information 

provided by the petitioner. This 

proposed decision, if finalized, would 

conditionally exclude the petitioned 

waste from the requirements of 

hazardous waste regulations under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). 

If finalized, we would conclude the 

petitioned waste from this facility is 

non-hazardous with respect to the 

original listing criteria and that the 

waste process used will substantially 

reduce the likelihood of migration of 

hazardous constituents from this waste. 

We would also conclude that the 

processes minimize short-term and 

long-term threats from the petitioned 

waste to human health and the 

environment. 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA approving? 

B. Why is EPA approving this delisting? 

C. How will Eastman manage the wastes, 

if it is delisted? 

D. When would the delisting exclusion be 

finalized? 

E. How would this action affect states? 

II. Background 

A. What is the history of the delisting 

program? 

B. What is a delisting petition, and what 

does it require of a petitioner? 

C. What factors must EPA consider in 

deciding whether to grant a delisting 

petition? 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What wastes did Eastman petition EPA 

to delist? 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
58316 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

B. Who is Eastman and what process do 

they use to generate the petitioned 

wastes? 

C. What information did Eastman submit to 

support this petition? 

D. What were the results of Eastman’s 

analysis? 

E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of 

delisting this waste? 

F. What did EPA conclude about Eastman’s 

analysis? 

G. What other factors did EPA consider in 

its evaluation? 

H. What is EPA’s evaluation of this 

delisting petition? 

IV. Next Steps 

A. With what conditions must the 

petitioner comply? 

B. What happens, if Eastman violates the 

terms and conditions of this delisting 

action? 

V. Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA approving? 

EPA is approving the delisting 

petition submitted by Eastman to have 

three waste streams generated from its 

rotary kiln incinerator (RKI) excluded, 

or delisted, from the definition of a 

hazardous waste. These waste streams 

are the rotary kiln incinerator (RKI) 

bottom ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI 

scrubber water blowdown. The RKI 

bottom ash and the RKI fly ash are 

derived from the management of several 

F-, K-, and U-waste codes. These waste 

codes are F001, F002, F003, F005, F039, 

K009, K010, U001, U002, U031, U069, 

U107, U112, U117, U140, U147, U161, 

U213, and U359. The Scrubber water 

blowdown produced by the RKI’s air 

pollution control equipment is also 

derived from the management of several 

F-, K-, and U-waste codes as well as 

certain characteristic hazardous wastes. 

These waste codes are D001, D002, 

D003, D007, D008, D018, D022, F001, 

F002, F003, F005, F039, K009, K010, 

U001, U002, U031, U069, U107, U112, 

U117, U140, U147, U161, U213, and 

U359. The RKI is authorized to manage 

a list of additional F-, K-, U-, and 

P-codes to cover off-site sources not 

attributed to the above waste codes. If 

these waste codes are not specifically 

listed in the delisting exclusion, they 

are not covered by the exclusion and 

can not be managed as non-hazardous, 

unless and until, the exclusion is 

modified to include them. 

B. Why is EPA approving this delisting? 

Eastman’s petition requests a delisting 

for three waste streams: The RKI bottom 

ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI scrubber water 

blowdown listed as D001, D002, D003, 

D007, D008, D018, D022, F001, F002, 

F003, F005, F039, K009, K010, U001, 

U002, U031, U069, U107, U112, U117, 

U140, U147, U161, U213, and U359. 

Eastman does not believe that the 

petitioned wastes meet the criteria for 

which EPA listed them. Eastman also 

believes no additional constituents or 

factors could cause the wastes 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 initial delisting 

determination, EPA evaluated the 

petitioned waste against the listing 

criteria and factors cited in 

§ 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this 

review, EPA agrees with the petitioner 

that the waste is non-hazardous with 

respect to the original listing criteria. If 

EPA had found, based on this review, 

that the waste remained hazardous 

based on the factors for which the waste 

was originally listed, EPA would have 

proposed to deny the petition. 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. 

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. EPA 

believes that the petitioned wastes do 

not meet the listing criteria and thus 

should not be a listed waste. EPA’s 

decision to delist the wastes identified 

above from the facility is based on the 

information submitted in support of this 

rule, including descriptions of the waste 

and analytical data from the Eastman, 

Longview, Texas facility. 

C. How will Eastman manage the waste, 

if it is delisted? 

Eastman will dispose of the fly ash 

and bottom ash in an onsite landfill. 

The scrubber water blowdown will be 

managed in the waste water treatment 

plant (WWTP). The sludge from the 

WWTP has been delisted. See Appendix 

IX to Part 261, Table 1. All management 

occurs on-site and will remain the same 

after the delisting is granted. 

D. When would the delisting exclusion 

be finalized? 

RCRA section 3001(f) specifically 

requires EPA to provide notice and an 

opportunity for comment before 

granting or denying a final exclusion. 

Thus, EPA will not grant the exclusion 

unless and until it addresses all timely 

public comments (including those at 

public hearings, if any) on this proposal. 

RCRA section 3010(b)(1), at 42 USCA 

6930(b)(1), allows rules to become 

effective in less than six months after 

EPA addresses public comments when 

the regulated facility does not need the 

six-month period to come into 

compliance. That is the case here, 

because this rule, if finalized, would 

reduce the existing requirements for 

persons generating hazardous wastes. 

EPA believes that this exclusion 

should be effective immediately upon 

final publication because a six-month 

deadline is not necessary to achieve the 

purpose of section 3010(b), and a later 

effective date would impose 

unnecessary hardship and expense on 

this petitioner. These reasons also 

provide good cause for making this rule 

effective immediately, upon final 

publication, under the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

E. How would this action affect the 

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 states 

which have received authorization from 

EPA to make their own delisting 

decisions. 

EPA allows the states to impose their 

own non-RCRA regulatory requirements 

that are more stringent than EPA’s, 

under section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

6929. 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, EPA urges petitioners to contact 

the state regulatory authority to 

establish the status of their wastes under 

the state law. Delisting petitions 

approved by EPA Administrator under 

40 CFR 260.22 are effective in the State 

of Texas only after the final rule has 

been published in the Federal Register. 

II. Background 

A. What is the history of the delisting 

program? 

EPA published an amended list of 

hazardous wastes from nonspecific and 

specific sources on January 16, 1981, as 

part of its final and interim final 

regulations implementing section 3001 

of RCRA. EPA has amended the lists 

several times and codified them in 

§§ 261.31 and 261.32. EPA lists these 

wastes as hazardous because: (1) They 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 58317 

typically and frequently exhibit one or 

more of the characteristics of hazardous 

wastes identified in Subpart C of Part 

261 (that is, ignitability, corrosivity, 

reactivity, and toxicity) or (2) they meet 

the criteria for listing contained in 

§ 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3). 

Individual waste streams may vary, 

however, depending on raw materials, 

industrial processes, and other factors. 

Thus, while a waste described in these 

regulations generally is hazardous, a 

specific waste from an individual 

facility meeting the listing description 

may not be hazardous. 

For this reason, §§ 260.20 and 260.22 

provide an exclusion procedure, called 

delisting, which allows persons to prove 

that EPA should not regulate a specific 

waste from a particular generating 

facility as a hazardous waste. 

B. What is a delisting petition, and what 

does it require of a petitioner? 

A delisting petition is a request from 

a facility to EPA or an authorized State 

to exclude wastes from the list of 

hazardous wastes. The facility petitions 

EPA because it does not believe the 

wastes should be hazardous under 

RCRA regulations. 

In a delisting petition, the petitioner 

must show that wastes generated at a 

particular facility do not meet any of the 

criteria for which the waste was listed. 

The criteria for which EPA lists a waste 

are in Part 261 and further explained in 

the background documents for the listed 

waste. 

In addition, under § 260.22, a 

petitioner must prove that the waste 

does not exhibit any of the hazardous 

waste characteristics and present 

sufficient information for EPA to decide 

whether factors other than those for 

which the waste was listed warrant 

retaining it as a hazardous waste. See 

Part 261 and the background documents 

for the listed waste. 

Generators remain obligated under 

RCRA to confirm whether their waste 

remains non-hazardous based on the 

hazardous waste characteristics even if 

EPA has ‘‘delisted’’ the waste. 

C. What factors must EPA consider in 

deciding whether to grant a delisting 

petition? 

Besides considering the criteria in 

§ 260.22(a) and section 3001(f) of RCRA, 

42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background 

documents for the listed wastes, EPA 

must consider any factors (including 

additional constituents) other than those 

for which EPA listed the waste, if a 

reasonable basis exists to determine that 

these additional factors could cause the 

waste to be hazardous. 

EPA must also consider as hazardous 

waste mixtures containing listed 

hazardous wastes and wastes derived 

from treating, storing, or disposing of 

listed hazardous waste. See 

§ 261.3(a)(2)(iii) and (iv) and (c)(2)(i), 

called the ‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derived-from’’ 

rules, respectively. These wastes are 

also eligible for exclusion and remain 

hazardous wastes until excluded. See 66 

FR 27266 (May 16, 2001). 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What waste did Eastman petition 

EPA to delist? 

Eastman petitioned EPA on December 

1, 2008, to exclude from the lists of 

hazardous wastes contained in 

§§ 261.24, 261.31, and 261.32, certain 

wastes from its rotary kiln incineration 

system. The three waste streams 

included in the petition were: the RKI 

fly ash, RKI bottom ash and RKI 

scrubber water blowdown. 

The waste streams are generated from 

the Eastman facility located in 

Longview, Texas. The RKI fly ash and 

RKI bottom ash are listed under EPA 

Hazardous Waste No. F001, F002, F003, 

F005, F039, K009, K010, U001, U002, 

U031, U069, U107, U112, U117, U140, 

U147, U161, U213, and U359. The 

Scrubber water blowdown produced by 

the RKI’s air pollution control 

equipment is also derived from the 

management of several F-, K-, and Uwaste codes as well as certain 

characteristic hazardous wastes. These 

waste codes are D001, D002, D003, 

D007, D008, D018, D022, F001, F002, 

F003, F005, F039, K009, K010, U001, 

U002, U031, U069, U107, U112, U117, 

U140, U147, U161, U213, and U359. 

Specifically, in its petition, Eastman 

requested that EPA grant exclusions for 

1,000 cubic yards per calendar year of 

RKI fly ash; 750 cubic yards per 

calendar year of RKI bottom ash; and 

643,000 cubic yards (500,000 million 

gallons) of RKI scrubber water 

blowdown waste resulting from the 

operations of the rotary kiln incinerator 

at its facility. 

B. Who is Eastman and what process do 

they use to generate the petitioned 

waste? 

Eastman manufactures a variety of 

chemicals and plastics at its facility 

located in Longview, Texas. The 

Longview, Texas facility occupies 

roughly 6,000 acres of land and 

produces approximately 40 chemical 

and plastic product lines. While 

Eastman owns and operates a majority 

of individual production plants at the 

facility, there are some production 

plants that are not owned by Eastman 

but are located on the facility. Eastman 

provides utility support to these 

captured facilities, such use of the 

wastewater treatment plant and waste 

management in the RKI through service 

agreements. The production processes 

employed by the captured facilities 

produce products in conjunction with 

Eastman. The Eastman-Longview Texas 

facility also accepts waste for processing 

in the RKI from other off-site Eastman 

facilities. This facility does not accept 

wastes from sources outside the 

Eastman family. The unit is dedicated to 

wastes similar to those generated by 

Eastman only facilities. 

The RKI is a thermal combustion unit 

owned and operated by Eastman that is 

used for the destruction of hazardous 

and non-hazardous wastes generated by 

Eastman Chemicals as well as its 

captured facilities. The RKI operates at 

1700–2200 °F and is RCRA permitted to 

manage a large variety of wastes 

including wastes generated from other 

Eastman divisions. These wastes can 

have a variety of D-, F-, U-, K-, and Pcodes. In practice, the waste codes 

managed in the RKI will be associated 

with production processes from 

Eastman Chemicals. 

The RKI Bottom and Fly Ashes and 

Scrubber Water Blowdown are 

generated by the RKI as residuals from 

the waste combustion process. Bottom 

ash is generated when large particulate 

matter drops from the secondary 

combustion chamber (SCC) into an ash 

removal pit situated directly under the 

SCC. Bottom ashes are removed from 

the pit via a chain driven ash conveyor 

system and placed in large containers 

for subsequent management. They are 

tested, may have polymers added to 

them for stabilization and disposed of in 

an on-site hazardous waste landfill. Fly 

ash is lighter than bottom ash and is 

associated with finer particulate matter 

that leaves the SCC as part of the 

‘‘exhaust’’ gas. From the SCC, exhaust 

gases pass through a rapid quench tank 

and condenser, which have water layers 

to capture smaller particulate matter. 

Exhaust gas then proceeds through a 

wet scrubber where more particulate 

matter is removed. The ‘‘blowdown’’ 

water streams through the quench/ 

condenser and scrubber systems are 

routed to a blowdown tank (clarifier). In 

the tank, the combined blowdown 

stream (fly ash and water) is phase 

separated with the scrubber water 

blowdown then going to the wastewater 

system and fly ash slurry going to a 

rotary filter for dewatering. It is at this 

point in the system that scrubber water 

blowdown is defined. It is also at this 

point in the system that dewatered 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
58318 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

solids from the rotary filter are 

considered fly ash. The dewatered fly 

ash is removed from the filter and 

placed in large containers for 

subsequent management which can 

consist of testing, addition of polymers 

(as needed), and disposal in the on-site 

hazardous waste landfill. 

Eastman intends to dispose of the 

delisted RKI bottom ash and RKI fly ash 

at a on-site Subtitle D Landfill, and the 

RKI scrubber water blowdown will be 

treated in the Wastewater Treatment 

Plant. Treatment of process wastes and 

wastes from captured facilities generate 

the RKI bottom ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI 

scrubber water blowdown that is 

classified as F001, F002, F003, F005, 

F039, K009, K010, U001, U002, U031, 

U069, U107, U112, U117, U140, U147, 

U161, U213, and U359 listed hazardous 

wastes pursuant to 40 CFR 261.31 and 

261.32. The 40 CFR Part 261 Appendix 

VII hazardous constituents which are 

the basis for listing can be found in 

Table 1 and Table 2. 

TABLE 1—EPA WASTE CODES FOR RKI ASHES AND THE BASIS FOR LISTING

Waste code Basis for listing 

F001 ............ Tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride, chlorinated fluorocarbons. 

F002 ............ Tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, chlorobenzene, 1,1,2- 

trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane, ortho-dichlorobenzene, trichlorofluoromethane. 

F003 ............ N.A., xylene, acetone, ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, ethyl ether, methyl isobutyl ketone, n-butyl alcohol, cyclohexane, methanol. 

F005 ............ Toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine, 2-ethoxyethanol, benzene, 2-nitropropane.

F039 ............ All constituents for which treatment standards are specified for multi-source leachate (wastewaters and nonwastewaters) under 

40 CFR 268.43, Table CCW. 

K009 ............ Chloroform, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, methyl chloride, paraldehyde, formic acid. 

K010 ............ Chloroform, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, methyl chloride, paraldehyde, formic acid, chloroacetaldehyde. 

U001 ............ Acetaldehyde. 

U002 ............ Acetone. 

U028 ............ Bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate. 

U031 ............ n-Butyl alcohol. 

U069 ............ Dibutyl phthalate. 

U088 ............ Di-ethyl phthalate. 

U107 ............ Di-n-octyl phthalate. 

U112 ............ Ethyl acetate. 

U115 ............ Ethylene oxide. 

U117 ............ Ethane, 1,1′-oxybis-(I). 

U122 ............ Formaldehyde. 

U140 ............ Isobutyl alcohol. 

U147 ............ Maleic anhydride. 

U154 ............ Methanol. 

U159 ............ Methyl ethyl ketone. 

U161 ............ Methyl isobutyl ketone. 

U213 ............ Tetrahydrofuran. 

U220 ............ Toluene. 

U226 ............ 1,1,1–Trichloroethane (methyl chloroform). 

U239 ............ Xylene. 

U359 ............ Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether. 

TABLE 2—EPA WASTE CODES FOR RKI ASHES AND THE BASIS FOR LISTING

Waste code Basis for listing 

F001 ............ Tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride, chlorinated fluorocarbons. 

F002 ............ Tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, chlorobenzene, 1,1,2- 

trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane, ortho-dichlorobenzene, trichlorofluoromethane. 

F003 ............ N.A., xylene, acetone, ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, ethyl ether, methyl isobutyl ketone, n-butyl alcohol, cyclohexane, methanol. 

F005 ............ Toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine, 2-ethoxyethanol, benzene, 2-nitropropane.

F039 ............ All constituents for which treatment standards are specified for multi-source leachate (wastewaters and nonwastewaters) under 

40 CFR 268.43, Table CCW. 

K009 ............ Chloroform, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, methyl chloride, paraldehyde, formic acid. 

K010 ............ Chloroform, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, methyl chloride, paraldehyde, formic acid, chloroacetaldehyde. 

U001 ............ Acetaldehyde. 

U002 ............ Acetone. 

U028 ............ Bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate. 

U031 ............ n-Butyl alcohol. 

U069 ............ Dibutyl phthalate. 

U088 ............ Di-ethyl phthalate. 

U107 ............ Di-n-octyl phthalate. 

U112 ............ Ethyl acetate. 

U115 ............ Ethylene oxide. 

U117 ............ Ethane, 1,1′-oxybis-(I). 

U122 ............ Formaldehyde. 

U140 ............ Isobutyl alcohol. 

U147 ............ Maleic anhydride. 

U154 ............ Methanol. 

U159 ............ Methyl ethyl ketone. 

U161 ............ Methyl isobutyl ketone. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 58319 

TABLE 2—EPA WASTE CODES FOR RKI ASHES AND THE BASIS FOR LISTING—Continued 

Waste code Basis for listing 

U213 ............ Tetrahydrofuran. 

U220 ............ Toluene. 

U226 ............ 1,1,1–Trichloroethane (methyl chloroform). 

U239 ............ Xylene. 

U359 ............ Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether. 

D001 ............ Ignitability. 

D002 ............ Corrosivity. 

D003 ............ Reactivity. 

D007 ............ Chromium. 

D008 ............ Lead. 

D018 ............ Benzene. 

D022 ............ Chloroform. 

C. What information did Eastman 

submit to support this petition? 

To support its petition, Eastman 

submitted: 

1. Analytical results of the toxicity 

characteristic leaching procedure and 

total constituent analysis for volatile 

and semivolatile organics, pesticides, 

herbicides, dioxins/furans, PCBs and 

metals for eight samples for the RKI fly 

ash and RKI bottom ash, and RKI 

scrubber water blowdown; 

2. Analytical results of the total 

constituent analysis for volatile and 

semivolatile organics, pesticides, 

herbicides, dioxins/furans, PCBs and 

metals for eight samples for the RKI 

scrubber water blowdown; 

3. Analytical results from multiple pH 

leaching of metals and; 

4. Description of the operations and 

waste received of the RKI. 

D. What were the results of Eastman’s 

analysis? 

EPA believes that the descriptions of 

Eastman’s waste, and the analytical data 

submitted in support of the petition 

show that the RKI bottom ash, RKI fly 

ash, and RKI scrubber water blowdown 

are non-hazardous. Analytical data from 

Eastman’s RKI bottom ash, RKI fly ash, 

and RKI scrubber water blowdown 

samples were used in the Delisting Risk 

Assessment Software (DRAS). The data 

summaries for detected constituents are 

presented in Table 3, 4, and 5. EPA has 

reviewed the sampling procedures used 

by Eastman and has determined that 

they satisfy EPA’s criteria for collecting 

representative samples of the variations 

in constituent concentrations in the RKI 

bottom ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI 

scrubber water blowdown. The data 

submitted in support of the petition 

show that constituents in Eastman’s 

wastes are presently below health-based 

risk levels used in the delisting 

decision-making. EPA believes that 

Eastman has successfully demonstrated 

that the RKI bottom ash, RKI fly ash, 

and RKI scrubber water blowdown are 

non-hazardous. 

TABLE 3—ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATIONS OF THE RKI BOTTOM ASH1

Constituent Maximum total 

(mg/kg) 

Maximum 

TCLP (mg/l) 

Maximum allowable 

TCLP delisting level 

(mg/L) 

Antimony ...................................................................................... 16 0.062 0.801 

Acetone ........................................................................................ 0.194 0.772 33.8 

Arsenic ......................................................................................... 8.8 0.029 0.126 

Acetaldehyde ............................................................................... 1.37 <0.0100 5.35 

Acenaphthylene ........................................................................... 3.5 0.014 31.9 

Anthracene ................................................................................... 1.6 <0.0100 77.9 

Acenaphthene .............................................................................. 0.721 0.014 31.9 

Barium .......................................................................................... 370 0.7 100 

Benzene ....................................................................................... <0.170 0.0048 0.231 

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ............................................................ 0.23 0.017 103.0 

Benzo(a) anthracene ................................................................... 0.763 <0.0100 0.211 

Benzo(a) pyrene .......................................................................... 0.519 <0.0100 79.1 

Benzo(b) flouranthene ................................................................. 0.343 <0.0100 673 

Bromomethane ............................................................................ 0.057 <0.0100 0.0526 

n-Butyl alcohol ............................................................................. 4.5 <0.0100 174 

Cadmium ...................................................................................... 1.5 0.002 0.274 

Chromium .................................................................................... 14 0.02 5.0 

Cobalt ........................................................................................... 31 0.023 0.643 

Copper ......................................................................................... 29 0.048 73.8 

Chloroform ................................................................................... 0.0024 0.0047 0.241 

Chrysene ...................................................................................... 0.545 <0.0100 211 

Chloromethane ............................................................................ 0.034 <0.0100 18.2 

Cyanide ........................................................................................ 0.195 0.125 9.25 

4,4–DDT ....................................................................................... 0.0032 <0.0100 0.0103 

Di-n-butyl phthalate ...................................................................... <0.010 0.005 73.9 

Dieldrin ......................................................................................... 0.0013 <0.0100 2.78 

Ethylbenzene ............................................................................... 0.0086 0.00855 32.6 

Fluorene ....................................................................................... 2.24 0.031 14.7 

Formaldehyde .............................................................................. 4.6 0.23 347 

Fluoranthrene ............................................................................... 1.22 <0.0100 7.39 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
58320 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3—ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATIONS OF THE RKI BOTTOM ASH1— 

Continued 

Constituent Maximum total 

(mg/kg) 

Maximum 

TCLP (mg/l) 

Maximum allowable 

TCLP delisting level 

(mg/L) 

Isobutanol .................................................................................... 1.9 1.88 521 

Lead ............................................................................................. 7.1 0.016 1.95 

Mercury ........................................................................................ <0.017 <0.0002 0.2 

Methyl Isobutyl ketone ................................................................. 0.0035 0.0048 139 

2–Methylnaphathalene ................................................................. 0.501 0.012 2.18 

Methylene Chloride ...................................................................... 0.072 0.131 0.237 

Naphthalene ................................................................................. <0.022 <0.0100 0.0983 

Nickel ........................................................................................... 44,000 52 54.1 

Phenanthrene .............................................................................. 6.48 0.039 14.7 

Pyrene .......................................................................................... 2.67 <0.0100 13.4 

Selenium ...................................................................................... 15 0.074 1.0 

Silver ............................................................................................ 0.027 <0.0020 5.0 

Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8- ............................. 0.31E–06 <5.92E–08 7.46 E–06 mg/kg total 

Thallium ....................................................................................... 3.7 0.017 0.110 

Tin ................................................................................................ 3.9 <0.0100 22.5 

Toluene ........................................................................................ 0.015 0.0066 45.4 

Vanadium ..................................................................................... 7.1 0.11 10.4 

Xylenes ........................................................................................ 0.049 0.0486 28.7 

Zinc .............................................................................................. 550 8.5 600 

1These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent found in any one sample. These levels do not necessarily represent the 

specific levels found in one sample. 

< # Denotes that the constituent was below the detection limit. 

TABLE 4—ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATIONS OF THE RKI FLY ASH1

Constituent Maximum 

total (mg/kg) 

Maximum TCLP 

(mg/l) 

Maximum allowable 

TCLP delisting level 

(mg/L) 

Antimony ...................................................................................... 25 0.18 0.433 

Acetone ........................................................................................ 0.177 0.959 2070 

Arsenic ......................................................................................... 18 0.045 0.418 

Acetaldehyde ............................................................................... 255 <0.001 0.6264 

Barium .......................................................................................... 110 1.4 100 

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ............................................................ 0.157 0.006 0.0522 

Cadmium ...................................................................................... 2.9 0.011 0.362 

Chromium .................................................................................... 5.9 0.015 5.0 

Cobalt ........................................................................................... 86 0.1 0.852 

Copper ......................................................................................... 100 0.52 97.1 

Chloroform ................................................................................... 0.002 0.0044 0.319 

Chloromethane ............................................................................ 0.0285 0.0018 24.1 

Cyanide ........................................................................................ 0.17 <0.001 0.0154 

Delta BHC .................................................................................... 0.0031 <0.001 3 

1,2–Dichlorobenzene ................................................................... <0.5 0.0027 37 

1,3–Dichlorobenzene ................................................................... <0.5 0.0023 37 

Formaldehyde .............................................................................. 5.44 0.272 461 

Lead ............................................................................................. 12 0.021 2.45 

Methanol ...................................................................................... 12.2 <0.001 0.6743 

Methyl isobutanol ketone ............................................................. 0.004 0.0048 184 

Methylene Chloride ...................................................................... 0.047 0.137 0.315 

Nickel ........................................................................................... 110,000 47 53.8 

Nitrobenzene ................................................................................ <0.5 0.011 1.15 

Selenium ...................................................................................... 25 0.082 1.0 

Silver ............................................................................................ 2.4 <0.001 5.0 

Thallium ....................................................................................... 6.7 0.019 0.146 

Tin ................................................................................................ 7.8 <0.001 22.5 

Toluene ........................................................................................ 0.002 0.037 60.1 

Vanadium ..................................................................................... 6.2 <0.001 14.36 

Zinc .............................................................................................. 4200 <0.001 11.3 

Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8- ............................. ........................................ 2.8 E–06 mg/kg 8.39 E–05 mg/kg total 

1 These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent found in any one sample. These levels do not necessarily represent the 

specific levels found in one sample. 

< # Denotes that the constituent was below the detection limit. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 58321 

TABLE 5—ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATIONS OF THE RKI SCRUBBER WATER

BLOWDOWN 1

Constituent Maximum TCLP 

(mg/l) 

Maximum 

allowable TCLP 

delisting 

level (mg/l) 

Antimony .............................................................................................................................................................. 0 .041 0 .0568 

Arsenic ................................................................................................................................................................. 0 .013 0 .112 

Barium .................................................................................................................................................................. 0 .61 11 .6 

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate .................................................................................................................................... 0 .009 0 .0522 

Chromium ............................................................................................................................................................ 0 .019 10 .3 

Cobalt ................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .012 0 .318 

Copper ................................................................................................................................................................. 0 .052 22 .1 

Chloroform ........................................................................................................................................................... 0 .001 0 .0163 

Chloromethane .................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0021 1 .48 

Cyanide ................................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0048 0 .752 

Di-n-butylphthalate ............................................................................................................................................... 0 .001 25 .6 

Lead ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .019 2 .57 

Methanol .............................................................................................................................................................. 0 .42 70 .6 

Nickel ................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .50 5 .74 

Silver .................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .002 1 .71 

Thallium ............................................................................................................................................................... 0 .011 0 .0179 

Tin ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0 .022 22 .5 

Vanadium ............................................................................................................................................................. 0 .006 4 .88 

Zinc ...................................................................................................................................................................... 16 77 .7 

1These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent found in any one sample. These levels do not necessarily represent the 

specific levels found in one sample. 

< # Denotes that the constituent was below the detection limit. 

E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of 

delisting this waste? 

The worst case scenario for 

management of the RKI bottom ash and 

RKI fly ash was modeled for disposal in 

a landfill. The worst case scenario for 

management of the RKI scrubber water 

blowdown was modeled for disposal in 

a surface impoundent. EPA used such 

information gathered to identify 

plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground 

water, surface water, soil, air) for 

hazardous constituents present in the 

RKI bottom ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI 

scrubber water blowdown. EPA 

determined that disposal in a Subtitle D 

landfill is the most reasonable, worstcase disposal scenario for Eastman’s RKI 

bottom ash and RKI fly ash. EPA 

determined that disposal in a surface 

impoundment is the most reasonable, 

worst-case disposal scenario for 

Eastman’s RKI scrubber water 

blowdown. EPA applied the DRAS 

described in 65 FR 58015 (September 

27, 2000), 65 FR 75637 (December 4, 

2000) and 73 FR 28768 (May 19, 2008), 

to predict the maximum allowable 

concentrations of hazardous 

constituents that may be released from 

the petitioned wastes after disposal and 

determined the potential impact of the 

disposal of Eastman’s petitioned wastes 

on human health and the environment. 

In assessing potential risks to ground 

water, EPA used the maximum 

estimated waste volumes and the 

maximum reported extract 

concentrations as inputs to the DRAS 

program to estimate the constituent 

concentrations in the ground water at a 

hypothetical receptor well down 

gradient from the disposal site. Using 

the risk level (carcinogenic risk of 

10 5 and non-cancer hazard index of 

0.1), the DRAS program can backcalculate the acceptable receptor well 

concentrations (referred to as 

compliance-point concentrations) using 

standard risk assessment algorithms and 

Agency health-based numbers. Using 

the maximum compliance-point 

concentrations and EPA Composite 

Model for Leachate Migration with 

Transformation Products (EPACMTP) 

fate and transport modeling factors, the 

DRAS further back-calculates the 

maximum permissible waste constituent 

concentrations not expected to exceed 

the compliance-point concentrations in 

ground water. 

EPA believes that the EPACMTP fate 

and transport model represents a 

reasonable worst-case scenario for 

possible ground water contamination 

resulting from disposal of the petitioned 

waste in a landfill for the ashes, and a 

surface impoundment for the liquid 

scrubber water blowdown. A reasonable 

worst-case scenario is appropriate when 

evaluating whether a waste should be 

relieved of the protective management 

constraints of RCRA Subtitle C. The use 

of some reasonable worst-case scenarios 

resulted in conservative values for the 

compliance-point concentrations and 

ensured that the waste, once removed 

from hazardous waste regulation, will 

not pose a significant threat to human 

health and/or the environment. The 

DRAS also uses the maximum estimated 

waste volumes and the maximum 

reported total concentrations to predict 

possible risks associated with releases of 

waste constituents through surface 

pathways (e.g., volatilization or windblown particulate from the landfill). As 

in the above ground water analyses, the 

DRAS uses the risk level, the healthbased data and standard risk assessment 

and exposure algorithms to predict 

maximum compliance-point 

concentrations of waste constituents at 

a hypothetical point of exposure. Using 

fate and transport equations, the DRAS 

uses the maximum compliance-point 

concentrations and back-calculates the 

maximum allowable waste constituent 

concentrations (or ‘‘delisting levels’’). 

In most cases, because a delisted 

waste is no longer subject to hazardous 

waste control, EPA is generally unable 

to predict, and does not presently 

control, how a petitioner will manage a 

waste after delisting. Therefore, EPA 

currently believes that it is 

inappropriate to consider extensive sitespecific factors when applying the fate 

and transport model. EPA also considers 

the applicability of ground water 

monitoring data during the evaluation of 

delisting petitions. In this case, the 

ground water monitoring data was 

submitted in the previous petition and 

these wastes do not appear to be 

impacting the ground water of the 

landfill. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
58322 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA believes that the descriptions of 

Eastman’s RKI bottom ash, RKI fly ash, 

and RKI scrubber water blowdown and 

analytical characterizations of these 

wastes illustrate the presence of toxic 

constituents at lower concentrations in 

these waste streams. Therefore, it is 

reasonable to conclude that the 

likelihood of migration of hazardous 

constituents from the petitioned waste 

will be substantially reduced so that 

short-term and long-term threats to 

human health and the environment are 

minimized. 

The DRAS results, which calculated 

the maximum allowable concentration 

of chemical constituents in the RKI 

bottom ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI 

scrubber water blowdown are presented 

in Tables 3, 4, and 5. Based on the 

comparison of the DRAS results and 

maximum TCLP concentrations found 

in Tables 3, 4, and 5, the petitioned 

wastes should be delisted because no 

constituents of concern are likely to be 

present or formed as reaction products 

or by products in Eastman’s wastes. 

F. What did EPA conclude about 

Eastman’s analysis? 

EPA concluded, after reviewing 

Eastman’s processes that no other 

hazardous constituents of concern, other 

than those for which Eastman tested, are 

likely to be present or formed as 

reaction products or by-products in 

Eastman’s wastes. In addition, on the 

basis of explanations and analytical data 

provided by Eastman, pursuant to 

§ 260.22, EPA concludes that the 

petitioned wastes: RKI bottom ash, RKI 

fly ash, and RKI scrubber water 

blowdown do not exhibit any of the 

characteristics of ignitability, 

corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. See 

§§ 261.21, 261.22, 261.23, and 261.24 

respectively. 

G. What other factors did EPA consider 

in its evaluation? 

During the evaluation of this petition, 

in addition to the potential impacts to 

the ground water, EPA also considered 

the potential impact of the petitioned 

waste via non-ground water exposure 

routes (i.e., air emissions and surface 

runoff) for the RKI bottom ash, RKI fly 

ash, and RKI scrubber water blowdown. 

With regard to airborne dispersion in 

particular, EPA believes that exposure 

to airborne contaminants from the 

petitioned waste is unlikely. No 

appreciable air releases are likely from 

the RKI bottom ash and, RKI fly ash 

under any likely disposal conditions. 

EPA evaluated the potential hazards 

resulting from the unlikely scenario of 

airborne exposure to hazardous 

constituents released from the 

wastewater in an open landfill. The 

results of this worst-case analysis 

indicated that there is no substantial 

present or potential hazard to human 

health and the environment from 

airborne exposure to constituents from 

the RKI bottom ash and RKI fly ash. The 

RKI scrubber water blowdown was also 

evaluated for releases to the air from an 

impoundment and no substantial 

present or potential hazard was 

identified. 

H. What is EPA’s evaluation of this 

delisting petition? 

The descriptions by Eastman of the 

hazardous waste process and analytical 

characterization, with the proposed 

verification testing requirements (as 

discussed later in this notice), provide 

a reasonable basis for EPA to grant the 

petition. The data submitted in support 

of the petition show that constituents in 

the waste are below the maximum 

allowable concentrations (See Tables 3, 

4, and 5). EPA believes that the RKI 

bottom ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI 

scrubber water blowdown generated by 

Eastman contains hazardous 

constituents at levels which will present 

minimal short-term and long-term 

threats from the petitioned wastes to 

human health and the environment. 

Thus, EPA believes that it should 

grant to Eastman an exclusion from the 

list of hazardous wastes for the RKI 

bottom ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI 

scrubber water blowdown. EPA believes 

that the data submitted in support of the 

petition show the Eastman’s RKI bottom 

ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI scrubber water 

blowdown to be non-hazardous. 

EPA has reviewed the sampling 

procedures used by Eastman and has 

determined they satisfy EPA’s criteria 

for collecting representative samples of 

variable constituent concentrations in 

the RKI bottom ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI 

scrubber water blowdown. The data 

submitted in support of the petition 

show that constituents in Eastman’s 

wastes are presently below the 

compliance-point concentrations used 

in the delisting decision-making process 

and would not pose a substantial hazard 

to the environment and the public. EPA 

believes that Eastman has successfully 

demonstrated that the RKI bottom ash, 

RKI fly ash, and RKI scrubber water 

blowdown are non-hazardous. 

EPA, therefore, proposes to grant an 

exclusion to Eastman for the RKI bottom 

ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI scrubber water 

blowdown described in its December 

2008 petition. EPA’s decision to exclude 

these wastes is based on analysis 

performed on samples taken of the RKI 

bottom ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI 

scrubber water blowdown. 

If EPA finalizes the proposed rule, 

EPA will no longer regulate 1,000 cubic 

yards/year of RKI bottom ash; 750 cubic 

yards/year of RKI fly ash, and 643,000 

cubic yards/year (500,000 million 

gallons) of RKI scrubber water 

blowdown from Eastman’s Longview 

facility under parts 262 through 268 and 

the permitting standards of part 270. 

IV. Next Steps 

A. With what conditions must the 

petitioner comply? 

The petitioner, Eastman, must comply 

with the requirements in 40 CFR Part 

261, Appendix IX, Tables 1, 2, and 3 as 

amended by this notice. The text below 

gives the rationale and details of those 

requirements. 

(1) Delisting Levels 

This paragraph provides the levels of 

constituent concentrations for which 

Eastman RKI bottom ash, RKI fly ash, 

and RKI scrubber water blowdown, 

below which these wastes would be 

considered non-hazardous. 

EPA selected the set of inorganic and 

organic constituents specified in 

paragraph (1) and listed in 40 CFR part 

261, appendix IX, tables 1, 2, or 3 based 

on information in the petition. EPA 

compiled the inorganic and organic 

constituents list from descriptions of the 

manufacturing process used by 

Eastman, previous test data provided for 

the waste, and the respective healthbased levels used in delisting decisionmaking. These delisting levels 

correspond to the allowable levels 

measured in the leachable 

concentrations of the RKI bottom ash 

and RKI fly ash, and total 

concentrations of the RKI scrubber 

water blowdown. 

(2) Waste Holding and Handling 

Waste classification as non-hazardous 

cannot begin until compliance with the 

limits set in paragraph (1) has occurred 

for four consecutive quarterly sampling 

events. For example, if Eastman is 

issued a final exclusion in August, the 

first of four quarterly samples per waste 

stream can be collected in September. If 

EPA deems that the four representative 

composite samples of each waste stream 

meet all the indicator constituent 

delisting limits, classification of the 

waste as non-hazardous can begin in 

September of the next year. If 

constituent levels in any annual sample 

(and retest, if applicable) taken by 

Eastman exceed any of the delisting 

levels set in paragraph (1), Eastman 

must: (i) notify EPA in accordance with 

paragraph (6), and; (ii) manage and 

dispose of the RKI bottom ash, RKI fly 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 58323 

ash, and RKI scrubber water blowdown 

as hazardous waste generated under 

Subtitle C of RCRA. 

(3) Verification Testing Requirements 

Eastman must complete a verification 

testing program on the RKI bottom ash, 

RKI fly ash, and RKI scrubber water 

blowdown to assure that the wastes do 

not exceed the maximum levels 

specified in paragraph (1). If EPA 

determines that the data collected under 

this paragraph does not support the data 

provided in the petition, the exclusion 

will not cover the tested waste. This 

verification program operates on two 

levels. 

The initial part of the verification 

testing program consists of testing four 

composite samples from four 

consecutive quarters of RKI bottom ash, 

RKI fly ash, and RKI scrubber water 

blowdown for specified indicator 

parameters as described in paragraph 

(1). Levels of constituents measured in 

the samples of the RKI bottom ash, RKI 

fly ash, and RKI scrubber water 

blowdown that do not exceed the levels 

set forth in paragraph (1) can be 

considered non-hazardous after all four 

sets of sampling data meet the levels 

listed in paragraph (1). 

The second part of the verification 

testing program is the annual testing of 

a representative composite sample of 

the RKI bottom ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI 

scrubber water blowdown for all 

constituents specified in paragraph (1). 

If any delisting levels are not met in an 

annual test sample, then a second 

composite sample shall be collected 

within 10 days of becoming aware of the 

failure, and it must be analyzed 

expeditiously for the TCLP 

constituent(s) that exceeded Delisting 

Levels. 

If the annual testing of the wastes, and 

the retest, do not meet the delisting 

levels in paragraph (1), Eastman must 

notify EPA according to the 

requirements in paragraph (6). EPA will 

then take the appropriate actions 

necessary to protect human health and 

the environment as described in 

paragraph (6). Eastman must provide 

sampling results that support the 

rationale that the delisting exclusion 

should not be withdrawn. 

The final exclusion is effective upon 

publication in the Federal Register but 

the change in waste classification as 

‘‘non-hazardous’’ cannot begin until the 

four quarterly initial verification 

samples comply with the levels 

specified in paragraph (1). The waste 

classification as ‘‘non-hazardous’’ is also 

not authorized, if Eastman fails to 

perform the testing as specified herein. 

Should Eastman conduct the yearly 

testing as specified herein, then disposal 

of RKI bottom ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI 

scrubber water blowdown as delisted 

waste may not occur in the following 

year(s) until Eastman obtains the written 

approval of EPA. 

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions 

Paragraph (4) would allow Eastman 

the flexibility of modifying its processes 

(for example, changes in equipment or 

change in operating conditions) to 

improve its treatment processes. 

However, Eastman must prove the 

effectiveness of the modified process 

and request approval from EPA. 

Eastman must manage wastes generated 

during the new process demonstration 

as hazardous waste through verification 

sampling within 30 days of start-up. 

(5) Data Submittals 

To provide appropriate 

documentation that the Eastman facility 

is correctly managing the RKI bottom 

ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI scrubber water 

blowdown, Eastman must compile, 

summarize, and keep delisting records 

on-site for a minimum of five years. 

Eastman must keep all analytical data 

obtained pursuant to paragraph (3), 

including quality control information, 

for five years. Paragraph (5) requires that 

Eastman furnish these data upon request 

for inspection by any employee or 

representative of EPA or the State of 

Texas. 

If the exclusion is made final, then it 

will apply only to 1,000 cubic yards/ 

year of RKI bottom ash; 750 cubic yards/ 

year of RKI fly ash, and 643,000 cubic 

yards/year (500,000 million gallons) of 

RKI scrubber water blowdown generated 

at the Eastman facility after successful 

initial verification testing. 

EPA would require Eastman to submit 

additional verification data under any of 

the following circumstances: 

(a) If Eastman significantly alters the 

waste treatment system except as 

described in paragraph (4). 

(b) If Eastman uses any new 

manufacturing or production 

process(es), or significantly changes the 

current process(es) described in its 

petition; or 

(c) If Eastman makes any changes that 

could significantly affect the 

composition or type of waste generated. 

Eastman must submit a modification 

to the petition complete with full 

sampling and analysis for circumstances 

where the waste volume changes and/or 

additional waste codes are added to the 

waste stream. EPA will publish an 

amendment to the exclusion, if the 

changes are acceptable. 

Eastman must manage waste volumes 

greater than 1,000 cubic yards/year of 

RKI bottom ash; 750 cubic yards/year of 

RKI fly ash and 643,000 cubic yards/ 

year (500,000 million gallons) of RKI 

scrubber water blowdown as hazardous 

waste until EPA grants a revised 

exclusion. When this exclusion becomes 

final, the management by Eastman of the 

RKI bottom ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI 

scrubber water blowdown covered in 

this petition would be relieved from 

Subtitle C jurisdiction. Eastman may not 

classify the waste as non-hazardous 

until the revised exclusion is finalized. 

(6) Reopener 

The purpose of paragraph (6) is to 

require Eastman to disclose new or 

different information related to a 

condition at the facility or disposal of 

the waste, if it is pertinent to the 

delisting. Eastman must also use this 

procedure if the waste sample (and 

retest, if applicable) in the annual 

testing fails to meet the levels found in 

paragraph (1). This provision will allow 

EPA to reevaluate the exclusion, if a 

source provides new or additional 

information to EPA. EPA will evaluate 

the information on which it based the 

decision to see if it is still correct or if 

circumstances have changed so that the 

information is no longer correct or 

would cause EPA to deny the petition, 

if presented. 

This provision expressly requires 

Eastman to report differing site 

conditions or assumptions used in the 

petition in addition to failure to meet 

the annual testing conditions within 10 

days of discovery. If EPA discovers such 

information itself or from a third party, 

it can act on it as appropriate. The 

language being proposed is similar to 

those provisions found in RCRA 

regulations governing no-migration 

petitions at § 268.6. 

It is EPA’s position that it has the 

authority under RCRA and the 

Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 551 (1978) et seq., to reopen a 

delisting decision. EPA may reopen a 

delisting decision when it receives new 

information that calls into question the 

assumptions underlying the delisting. 

EPA believes a clear statement of its 

authority in delisting is merited in light 

of EPA’s experience. See the Federal 

Register notice regarding Reynolds 

Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 (July 

14, 1997) and 62 FR 63458 (December 

1, 1997) where the delisted waste 

leached at greater concentrations into 

the environment than the 

concentrations predicted when 

conducting the TCLP, leading EPA to 

repeal the delisting. If an immediate 

threat to human health and the 

environment presents itself, EPA will 

continue to address these situations on 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
58324 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

a case-by-case basis. Where necessary, 

EPA will make a good cause finding to 

justify emergency rulemaking. See APA 

section 553(b)(3)(B). 

B. What happens if Eastman violates the 

terms and conditions? 

If Eastman violates the terms and 

conditions established in the exclusion, 

EPA will start procedures to withdraw 

the exclusion. Where there is an 

immediate threat to human health and 

the environment, EPA will evaluate the 

need for enforcement activities on a 

case-by-case basis. EPA expects Eastman 

to conduct the appropriate waste 

analysis and comply with the criteria 

explained above in paragraph (1) of the 

exclusion. 

V. Final Action 

EPA is approving the delisting 

petition for three waste streams 

generated at Eastman Chemical’s 

Longview, Texas facility: (1) The RKI 

bottom ash; the RKI fly ash; and the RKI 

scrubber water blowdown. 

EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a non-controversial exclusion and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of today’s Federal Register, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposed rule to 

approve the petition if relevant adverse 

comments are received on this direct 

final rule. We will not institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. For further 

information about commenting on this 

rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. 

If EPA receives adverse comment, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. We 

would address all public comments in 

a subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. Please note that if we 

receive adverse comment on a 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, we may adopt as 

final those provisions of the rule that are 

not the subject of an adverse comment. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is 

not of general applicability and 

therefore is not a regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). This 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it 

applies to a particular facility only. 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or 

to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this 

rule will affect only a particular facility, 

it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as specified in 

section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule 

will affect only a particular facility, this 

proposed rule does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. Similarly, because this rule 

will affect only a particular facility, this 

proposed rule does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this rule. This rule 

also is not subject to Executive Order 

13045, ‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866, and because the Agency 

does not have reason to believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is that the Agency 

used the DRAS program, which 

considers health and safety risks to 

infants and children, to calculate the 

maximum allowable concentrations for 

this rule. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. This rule does not involve 

technical standards; thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, 

EPA has taken the necessary steps to 

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 

minimize potential litigation, and 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. 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 the Congress and 

to the Comptroller General of the United 

States. Section 804 exempts from 

section 801 the following types of rules 

(1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) 

rules relating to agency management or 

personnel; and (3) rules of agency 

organization, procedure, or practice that 

do not substantially affect the rights or 

obligations of non-agency parties 5 

U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to 

submit a rule report regarding this 

action under section 801 because this is 

a rule of particular applicability. 

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: September 8, 2010. 

Bill Luthans, 

Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and 

Permitting Division. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 261 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 

6922, and 6938. 

■ 2. In Tables 1, 2 and 3 of Appendix 

IX to part 261 add the following waste 

stream in alphabetical order by facility 

to read as follows: 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Waste 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 58325 

TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

Eastman 

Chemical 

Company— 

Texas Operations.

Longview, 

TX.

RKI bottom ash (EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers F001, F002, F003, F005, F039, K009, K010, U001, U002, 

U031, U069, U107, U112, U117, U140, U147, U161, U213, and U359.) generated at a maximum rate of 1,000 

cubic yards per calendar year after September 24, 2010 and disposed in Subtitle D Landfill. 

RKI fly ash EPA Hazardous Waste Number F001, F002, F003, F005, F039, K009, K010, U001, U002, U031, 

U069, U107, U112, U117, U140, U147, U161, U213, and U359 generated at a maximum rate of 750 cubic 

yards per calendar year after September 24, 2010 and disposed in Subtitle D Landfill. 

RKI scrubber water blowdown (EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers D001, D002, D003, D007, D008, D018, D022, 

F001, F002, F003, F005, F039, K009, K010, U001, U002, U031, U069, U107, U112, U117, U140, U147, U161, 

U213, and U359 generated at a maximum rate of 643,000 cubic yards (500,000 million gallons) per calendar 

year after September 24, 2010 and treated and discharged from a Wastewater Treatment Plant. 

For the exclusion to be valid, Eastman must implement a verification testing program for each of the waste 

streams that meets the following Paragraphs: 

(1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations for those constituents must not exceed the maximum allowable concentrations in mg/l specified in this paragraph. 

(A) RKI Bottom Ash. Leachable Concentrations (mg/l): Antimony—0.801; Acetone—33.8; Arsenic—0.126; Acetaldehyde—5.35; Acenaphthylene—31.9; Anthracene—77.9; Acenaphthene—31.9; Barium—100; Benzene— 

0.231; Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate—103; Benzo (a) anthracene—0.211; Benzo (a) pyrene—79.1; Benzo (b) 

flouranthene—673; Bromomethane—0.0526; n-Butyl Alcohol—174; Cadmium—0.274; Chromium—5.0; Cobalt—0.643; Copper—73.8; Chloroform—0.241; Chrysene—211; chloromethane—18.2; Cyanide—9.25; 4,4- 

DDT—0.0103; Di-n-butyl phthalate—73.9; Dieldrin—2.78; Ethylbenzene—32.6; Fluorene—14.7; Formaldehyde347; Fluoranthrene—7.39; Isobutanol—521; Lead—1.95; Mercury—0.2; Methy Isobutyl ketone—139; 2– 

Methylnaphathalene—2.18; Methylene Chloride—0.237; Naphthalene—0.0983; Nickel—54.1; Phenanthrene— 

14.7; Pyrene—13.4; Selenium—1.0; Silver—5.0; Thallium—0.110; Tin—22.5; Toluene—45.4; Vanadium—10.4; 

Xylene—28.7; Zinc—600. 

Total Concentrations (mg/kg) 

Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8–7.46 E–06 mg/kg. 

(B) RKI Fly Ash. Leachable Concentrations (mg/l): Antimony—0.111; Acetone—533; Arsenic—0.178; Barium— 

36.9; Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate—6.15; Chromium—2.32; Copper—26.5; Ethylbenzene—11.1; Methylene Chloride—0.0809; Naphthalene—0.0355; Nickel—13.8; Phenanthrene—2.72; Toluene—15.5; Trichloroethane— 

11900; Trichloroethylene—0.0794; Vanadium—1.00; Zinc—202. 

Total Concentrations (mg/kg) 

Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8–4.30 E–05 mg/kg. 

(C) RKI Scrubber Water Blowdown. TCLP Concentrations (mg/l): Antimony—0.0568; Arsenic—0.112; Barium— 

11.6; Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate—0.0522; Chromium—5.0; Cobalt—0.318, Copper—22.1; Chloroform—0.0163, 

Chloromethane—1.48; Cyanide—0.752; Di-n-butylphthalate—25.6; Lead—2.57; Methanol—70.6; Nickel—5.74; 

Silver—1.71; Thallium—0.0179; Tin—22.5; Vanadium—4.88; Zinc—77.7; 

(2) Waste Holding and Handling: 

(A) Waste classification as non-hazardous cannot begin until compliance with the limits set in paragraph (1) for 

RKI bottom ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI scrubber water blowdown has occurred for four consecutive quarterly 

sampling events. 

(B) If constituent levels in any annual sample and retest sample taken by Eastman exceed any of the delisting 

levels set in paragraph (1) for the RKI bottom ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI scrubber water blowdown, Eastman 

must do the following: 

(i) notify EPA in accordance with paragraph (6) and 

(ii) manage and dispose the RKI bottom ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI scrubber water blowdown as hazardous waste 

generated under Subtitle C of RCRA. 

(3) Testing Requirements: 

Upon this exclusion becoming final, Eastman must perform analytical testing by sampling and analyzing the RKI 

bottom ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI scrubber water blowdown as follows: 

(A) Initial Verification Testing: 

(i) Collect four representative composite samples of the RKI bottom ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI scrubber water 

blowdown at quarterly intervals after EPA grants the final exclusion. The first composite sample of each waste 

stream may be taken at any time after EPA grants the final approval. Sampling must be performed in accordance with the sampling plan approved by EPA in support of the exclusion. 

(ii) Analyze the samples for all constituents listed in paragraph (1). Any composite sample taken that exceeds the 

delisting levels listed in paragraph (1) indicates that the RKI bottom ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI scrubber water 

blowdown must continue to be disposed as hazardous waste in accordance with the applicable hazardous 

waste requirements until such time that four consecutive quarterly samples indicate compliance with delisting 

levels listed in paragraph (1). 

(iii) Within sixty (60) days after taking its last quarterly sample, Eastman will report its analytical test data to EPA. 

If levels of constituents measured in the samples of the RKI bottom ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI scrubber water 

blowdown do not exceed the levels set forth in paragraph (1) of this exclusion for four consecutive quarters, 

Eastman can manage and dispose the non-hazardous RKI bottom ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI scrubber water 

blowdown according to all applicable solid waste regulations. 

(B) Annual Testing: 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
58326 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued 

Facility Address Waste description 

(i) If Eastman completes the quarterly testing specified in paragraph (3) above and no sample contains a constituent at a level which exceeds the limits set forth in paragraph (1), Eastman must begin annual testing as 

follows: Eastman must test a representative composite sample of the RKI bottom ash, RKI fly ash, and RKI 

scrubber water blowdown for all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at least once per calendar year. If any 

measured constituent concentration exceeds the delisting levels set forth in paragraph (1), Eastman must collect an additional representative composite sample within 10 days of being made aware of the exceedence and 

test it expeditiously for the constituent(s) which exceeded delisting levels in the original annual sample. 

(ii) The samples for the annual testing shall be a representative composite sample according to appropriate methods. As applicable to the method-defined parameters of concern, analyses requiring the use of SW–846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11 must be used without substitution. As applicable, the SW–846 

methods might include Methods 0010, 0011, 0020, 0023A, 0030, 0031, 0040, 0050, 0051, 0060, 0061, 1010A, 

1020B,1110A, 1310B, 1311, 1312, 1320, 1330A, 9010C, 9012B, 9040C, 9045D, 9060A, 9070A (uses EPA 

Method 1664, Rev. A), 9071B, and 9095B. Methods must meet Performance Based Measurement System Criteria in which the Data Quality Objectives are to demonstrate that samples of the Eastman RKI bottom ash, 

RKI fly ash, and RKI scrubber water blowdown are representative for all constituents listed in paragraph (1). 

(iii) The samples for the annual testing taken for the second and subsequent annual testing events shall be taken 

within the same calendar month as the first annual sample taken. 

(iv) The annual testing report should include the total amount of delisted waste in cubic yards disposed during the 

calendar year. 

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If Eastman significantly changes the process described in its petition or 

starts any processes that generate(s) the waste that may or could affect the composition or type of waste generated (by illustration, but not limitation, changes in equipment or operating conditions of the treatment process), it must notify EPA in writing and it may no longer handle the wastes generated from the new process as 

non-hazardous until the wastes meet the delisting levels set in paragraph (1) and it has received written approval to do so from EPA. 

Eastman must submit a modification to the petition complete with full sampling and analysis for circumstances 

where the waste volume changes and/or additional waste codes are added to the waste stream. 

(5) Data Submittals: 

Eastman must submit 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 paragraph (6). Eastman must: 

(A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph 3 to the Chief, Corrective Action and Waste Minimization Section, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Ave., Dallas, Texas 75202, within the time specified. All supporting data can be submitted on CD–ROM or 

comparable electronic media. 

(B) Compile records of analytical data from paragraph (3), summarized, and maintained on-site for a minimum of 

five years. 

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

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

‘‘Under civil and criminal penalty of law for the making or submission of false or fraudulent statements or representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Federal Code, which include, but may not be limited 

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

As to the (those) identified section(s) of this document for which I cannot personally verify its (their) truth and accuracy, I certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility for the persons who, acting under my 

direct instructions, made the verification that this information is true, accurate and complete. 

If any of this information is determined by EPA in its sole discretion to be false, inaccurate or incomplete, and 

upon conveyance of this fact to the company, I recognize and agree that this exclusion of waste will be void as 

if it never had effect or to the extent directed by EPA and that the company will be liable for any actions taken 

in contravention of the company’s RCRA and CERCLA obligations premised upon the company’s reliance on 

the void exclusion.’’ 

(6) Reopener 

(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 ground water monitoring data) or any other data 

relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent identified for the delisting verification testing is at a 

level higher than the delisting level allowed by the Division Director in granting the petition, then the facility 

must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware 

of that data. 

(B) If either the annual testing (and retest, if applicable) of the waste does not meet the delisting requirements in 

paragraph 1, Eastman must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. 

(C) If Eastman fails to submit the information described in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B) or if any other information is received from any source, the Division Director will make a preliminary determination as to whether the 

reported information requires EPA action to protect human health and/or the environment. Further action may 

include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human 

health and the environment. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 58327 

TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued 

Facility Address Waste description 

(D) If the Division Director determines that the reported information requires action by EPA, the Division Director 

will notify the facility in writing of the actions the Division Director 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 EPA action is not necessary. The facility shall have 10 days from receipt of the Division Director’s notice to present such information. 

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

the Division Director will issue a final written determination describing EPA actions that are necessary to protect human health and/or the environment. Any required action described in the Division Director’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Division Director provides otherwise. 

(7) Notification Requirements: 

Eastman must do the following before transporting the delisted waste. Failure to provide this notification will result 

in a violation of the delisting petition and a possible revocation of the decision. 

(A) Provide a one-time written notification to any state Regulatory Agency to which or through which it will transport the delisted waste described above for disposal, 60 days before beginning such activities. 

(B) For onsite disposal a notice should be submitted to the State to notify the State that disposal of the delisted 

materials have begun. 

(C) Update one-time written notification, if it ships the delisted waste into a different disposal facility. 

(D) Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting variance and a possible revocation 

of the decision. 

TABLE 2—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

Eastman 

Chemical 

Company— 

Texas Operations.

Longview, 

TX.

RKI Bottom Ash. (EPA Hazardous Waste Number F001, F002, F003, F005, F039, K009, K010, U001, U002, 

U031, U069, U107, U112, U117, U140, U147, U161, U213, and U359) generated at a maximum rate of 1,000 

cubic yards per calendar year after September 24, 2010 and disposed in Subtitle D Landfill. 

RKI Fly Ash. EPA Hazardous Waste Number F001, F002, F003, F005, F039, K009, K010, U001, U002, U031, 

U069, U107, U112, U117, U140, U147, U161, U213, and U359 generated at a maximum rate of 2,000 cubic 

yards per calendar year after September 24, 2010 and disposed in Subtitle D Landfill. 

RKI Scrubber Water Blowdown (EPA Hazardous Numbers D001, D002, D003, D007, D008, D018, D022, F001, 

F002, F003, F005, F039, K009, K010, U001, U002, U031, U069, U107, U112, U117, U140, U147, U161, 

U213, and U359 generated at a maximum rate of 643,000 cubic yards (500,000 million gallons) per calendar 

year after September 24, 2010 and treated and discharged from a Wastewater Treatment Plant. 

Eastman must implement the testing program in Table 1. Wastes Excluded from Non-Specific Sources for the petition to be valid. 

TABLE 3—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM COMMERCIAL CHEMICAL PRODUCTS, OFF-SPECIFICATION SPECIES, CONTAINER

RESIDUES, AND SOIL RESIDUES THEREOF

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

Eastman 

Chemical 

Company— 

Texas Operations.

Longview, 

TX.

RKI bottom ash (EPA Hazardous Waste Number F001, F002, F003, F005, F039, K009, K010, U001, U002, 

U031, U069, U107, U112, U117, U140, U147, U161, U213, and U359) generated at a maximum rate of 1,000 

cubic yards per calendar year after September 24, 2010 and disposed in Subtitle D Landfill. 

RKI fly ash EPA Hazardous Waste Number F001, F002, F003, F005, F039, K009, K010, U001, U002, U031, 

U069, U107, U112, U117, U140, U147, U161, U213, and U359 generated at a maximum rate of 2,000 cubic 

yards per calendar year after September 24, 2010 and disposed in Subtitle D Landfill. 

RKI scrubber water blowdown (EPA Hazardous Numbers D001, D002, D003, D007, D008, D018, D022, F001, 

F002, F003, F005, F039, K009, K010, U001, U002, U031, U069, U107, U112, U117, U140, U147, U161, 

U213, and U359 generated at a maximum rate of 643,000 cubic yards (500,000 million gallons) per calendar 

year after September 24, 2010 and treated and discharged from a Wastewater Treatment Plant. 

Eastman must implement the testing program in Table 1. Wastes Excluded from Non-Specific Wastes for the petition to be valid. 

*******


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES
58328 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

[FR Doc. 2010–23965 Filed 9–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R07–RCRA–2008–0830; FRL–9205–3] 

Nebraska: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Solid Waste Disposal Act, 

as amended, commonly referred to as 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA), allows the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

to authorize States to operate their 

hazardous waste management programs 

in lieu of the Federal program. Nebraska 

has applied to EPA for final 

authorization of the changes to its 

hazardous waste program under RCRA. 

EPA has determined that these changes 

satisfy all requirements needed to 

qualify for final authorization and is 

authorizing the State’s changes through 

this immediate final action. 

DATES: This Final authorization will 

become effective on September 24, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Haugen, EPA Region 7, AWMD/RESP, 

901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, 

Kansas 66101, (913) 551–7877, or by 

e-mail at haugen.lisa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Why are revisions to state programs 

necessary? 

States which have received final 

authorization from EPA under RCRA 

section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must 

maintain a hazardous waste program 

that is equivalent to, consistent with, 

and no less stringent than the Federal 

program. As the Federal program 

changes, a State must change its 

program accordingly and ask EPA to 

authorize the changes. Changes to State 

programs may be necessary when 

Federal or State statutory or regulatory 

authority is modified or when certain 

other changes occur. Most commonly, 

the State must change its program 

because of changes to EPA’s regulations 

in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 

273 and 279. 

Nebraska initially received final 

authorization on January 24, 1985, 

effective February 7, 1985 (50 FR 3345), 

to implement the RCRA hazardous 

waste management program. EPA 

granted authorization for changes to 

Nebraska’s program on October 4, 1985, 

effective December 3, 1988 (53 FR 

38950); June 25, 1996, effective August 

26, 1996 (61 FR 32699); April 10, 2003, 

effective June 9, 2003 (68 FR 17553); 

and October 4, 2004, effective December 

3, 2004. 

On April 29, 2008, Nebraska 

submitted a final complete program 

revision application, seeking 

authorization of its changes in 

accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. On 

December 30, 2008, EPA published both 

an Immediate Final Rule (73 FR 79661) 

granting Nebraska final authorization for 

these revisions to its Federallyauthorized hazardous waste program, 

along with a companion Proposed Rule 

announcing EPA’s proposal to grant 

such a final authorization (73 FR 

79761). EPA announced in both 

documents that the Immediate Final 

Rule and the Proposed Rule were 

subject to a thirty-day comment period. 

The public comment period ended on 

January 29, 2009. EPA received written 

comments from one commenter during 

the public comment period. Today’s 

action responds to the comments EPA 

received and publishes EPA’s final 

determination granting Nebraska final 

authorization of its program revisions. 

Further background on EPA’s 

Immediate Final Rule and its tentative 

determination to grant authorization to 

Nebraska for its program revisions 

appears in the aforementioned Federal 

Register notices. The issues raised by 

the commenter are summarized and 

responded to as follows. 

B. What were the comments and 

responses to EPA’s proposal? 

The comments did not address 

specific concerns with EPA’s approval 

of the additional RCRA regulatory 

provisions in Nebraska’s authorized 

hazardous waste program; rather the 

comments address a previous rule 

promulgated by EPA. The commenter’s 

arguments relate specifically to EPA’s 

promulgation of the Zinc Fertilizer Rule 

on July 24, 2002 (67 FR 48393). 

Specifically, the commenter argued that 

the Phase IV Land Disposal Restriction 

(LDR)—which is more stringent than the 

Zinc Fertilizer Rule—resulted from an 

‘‘affirmative finding of safety’’ when 

zinc-containing hazardous wastes were 

disposed in Subtitle C landfills, so it is 

counterintuitive to claim that the same 

zinc-containing hazardous wastes can 

now ‘‘safely’’ be used as fertilizer. For 

the reasons set forth below, we do not 

agree with the commenter. 

EPA promulgated all of the rules 

included in Nebraska’s revision 

pursuant to the authority granted to EPA 

by Congress under RCRA. Those rules, 

including the Zinc Fertilizer Rule, were 

finalized after full consideration of any 

and all comments submitted in a timely 

manner. By adopting the rule 

promulgated by EPA, Nebraska revised 

its hazardous waste program to be 

equivalent to and consistent with the 

Federal program. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6926(b), EPA has the authority to 

authorize State programs that are 

equivalent to and consistent with the 

Federal program. The comments 

submitted speak directly to the Federal 

rule and not to EPA’s authorization of 

Nebraska’s program revisions. 

Therefore, we have determined that 

there is no basis to deny authorizing 

approval based on these comments. 

In addition, the commenter argues 

that exempting zinc-containing 

hazardous wastes from regulation as 

solid waste is not supported by 

Nebraska Revised Statute 75–362. This 

comment is not relevant to this action. 

The criteria for authorization of a State 

hazardous waste program are set forth at 

section 3006 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

6926(b). In reviewing an application 

under this section, EPA considers 

whether the State program (1) is 

equivalent to the Federal program under 

subchapter III, which governs hazardous 

waste; (2) is consistent with Federal or 

‘‘State programs applicable to other 

States’’; and (3) provides adequate 

enforcement of compliance with the 

requirements of subchapter III of RCRA. 

As part of this review, EPA considers 

whether the State is imposing 

requirements less stringent than those 

authorized under subchapter III 

respecting the same matter as governed 

by such regulation. The commenter’s 

argument with regard to Nebraska 

Revised Statute 75–362 falls outside the 

scope of our review of Nebraska’s 

application for the hazardous waste 

rules authorized herein. Therefore, the 

comment regarding Nebraska Revised 

Statute 75–362 is not relevant to this 

action. 

C. What decisions have we made in this 

rule? 

Based on EPA’s response to public 

comments, the Agency has determined 

that approval of Nebraska’s RCRA 

program revisions should proceed. EPA 

has made a final determination that 

Nebraska’s application to revise its 

authorized program meets all of the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

established by RCRA. Therefore, we 

grant Nebraska final authorization to 

operate its hazardous waste program 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES