Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules 75637

the proper performance of our agency’s

functions, including whether the

information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our

estimate of the burden of the proposed

information collection, including the

validity of the methodology and

assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the

information collection on those who are

to respond (such as through the use of

appropriate automated, electronic,

mechanical, or other technological

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology; e.g., permitting

electronic submission of responses).

Estimate of burden: Public reporting

burden for this collection of information

is estimated to average .34 hours per

response.

Respondents: Certain wholesale

dealers of dogs intended for hunting,

breeding, or security purposes.

Estimated annual number of

respondents: 5.

Estimated annual number of

responses per respondent: 6.4.

Estimated annual number of

responses: 32.

Estimated total annual burden on

respondents: 11 hours.

Copies of this information collection

can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection

Coordinator, at (301) 734–7477.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 1

Animal welfare, Pets, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Research.

Accordingly, we propose to amend 9

CFR part 1 as follows:

PART 1—DEFINITION OF TERMS

1. The authority citation for part 1

would be revised to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131–2159; 7 CFR 2.22,

2.80, and 371.7.

2. In § 1.1, the definition for ‘‘dealer’’

would be revised to read follows:

§ 1.1 Definitions.

* * * * *

Dealer means any person who, in

commerce, for compensation or profit,

delivers for transportation, or transports,

except as a carrier, buys, or sells, or

negotiates the purchase or sale of: Any

dog or other animal whether alive or

dead (including unborn animals, organs,

limbs, blood, serum, or other parts) for

research, teaching, testing,

experimentation, exhibition, or for use

as a pet; or any dog at the wholesale

level for hunting, security, or breeding

purposes. This term does not include: A

retail pet store, as defined in this

section, unless such store sells any

animals to a research facility, an

exhibitor, or a dealer (wholesale); any

retail outlet where dogs are sold for

hunting, breeding, or security purposes;

or any person who does not sell or

negotiate the purchase or sale of any

wild or exotic animal, dog, or cat and

who derives no more than $500 gross

income from the sale of animals other

than wild or exotic animals, dogs, or

cats, during any calendar year.

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of

November 2000.

Bobby R. Acord,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 00–30765 Filed 12–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW–FRL–6910–5]

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for

comment.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to use

the Delisting Risk Assessment Software

(DRAS) in the evaluation of a delisting

petition. Based on waste specific

information provided by the petitioner,

EPA is proposing to use the DRAS to

evaluate the impact of the petitioned

waste on human health and the

environment. Today’s proposal provides

background information on the

mechanics of the DRAS, and the use of

the DRAS in delisting decision-making.

The EPA is also 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 contained in 40 CFR

261.24 and 261.31 (hereinafter all

sectional references are to 40 CFR

unless otherwise indicated).

Eastman submitted the petition under

sections 260.20 and 260.22(a). Section

260.20 allows any person to petition the

Administrator to modify or revoke any

provision of sections 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 that

Eastman’s petitioned waste is

nonhazardous with respect to the

original listing criteria and that the

waste process Eastman uses will

substantially reduce the likelihood of

migration of hazardous constituents

from this waste. We would also

conclude that their process minimizes

short-term and long-term threats from

the petitioned waste to human health

and the environment.

DATES: We will accept comments until

January 18, 2001. We will stamp

comments received after the close of the

comment period as ‘‘late.’’ These ‘‘late’’

comments may not be considered in

formulating a final decision.

Your requests for a hearing must

reach EPA by December 19, 2000. The

request must contain the information

prescribed in section 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Please send three copies of

your comments. Two copies should be

sent to William Gallagher, Delisting

Section, Multimedia Planning and

Permitting Division (6PD–O),

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. A

third copy should be sent to the Texas

Natural Resources Conservation

Commission (TNRCC), P.O. Box 13087,

Austin, Texas, 78711–3087. Identify

your comments at the top with this

regulatory docket number: ‘‘F–00–

TXDEL–TXEASTMAN.’’

You should address requests for a

hearing to the Director, Carl Edlund,

Multimedia Planning and Permitting

Division (6PD), Environmental

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas 75202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michelle Peace at (214) 665–7430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Information in This Section is

Organized as Follows

I. What risk assessment methods has the

Agency used in previous delisting

determinations that are being revised in

this proposal?

A. Introduction

B. What fate and transport model does the

Agency use in the DRAS for evaluating

75638 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules

the risks to groundwater from the

proposed exempted waste?

C. Why is the EPACMTP fate and transport

model an improvement over the

EPACML?

D. Has the EPACMTP methodology been

formally reviewed?

E. Has the Agency modified the EPACMTP

as utilized in the HWIR proposal?

F. What modifications to the DRAS have

been made since the proposal on

September 27, 2000?

II. Overview Information

A. What action is EPA proposing?

B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this

delisting?

C. How will Eastman manage the waste if

it is delisted?

D. When would the proposed exclusion be

finalized?

E. How would this action affect states?

III. 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?

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste

Information and Data

A. What wastes did Eastman petition EPA

to delist?

B. Who is Eastman and what process do

they use to generate the petition waste?

C. How did Eastman sample and analyze

the data in 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?

V. Next Steps

A. With what conditions must the

petitioner comply?

B. What happens if Eastman violates the

terms and conditions?

VI. Public Comments

A. How may I as an interested party submit

comments?

B. How may I review the docket or obtain

copies of the proposed exclusions?

VII. Regulatory Impact

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act

X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

XI. Executive Order 13045

XII. Executive Order 13084

XIII. National Technology Transfer and

Advancements Act

XIV. Executive Order 13132 Federalism

I. What Risk Assessment Methods Has

the Agency Used in Previous Delisting

Determinations That Are Being Revised

in This Proposal?

A. Introduction

The fate and transport of constituents

in leachate from the bottom of the

landfill or surface impoundment waste

unit through the unsaturated zone (nonwater bearing layer) and to a drinking

water well in the saturated zone (waterbearing layer) is estimated using a fate

and transport model. The Agency has

applied the U.S. EPA Composite Model

for Landfill (EPACML) fate and

transport model to estimate constituent

concentrations in groundwater at a

receptor well located downgradient

from a landfill or surface impoundment.

The EPACML fate and transport model

was used to determine a dilution

attenuation factor (DAF). The DAF

estimates the degree of dilution and

attenuation that a waste constituent

would undergo as it leaches from a

waste management unit and is

transported in the subsurface, into the

saturated zone, and to a theoretical

downgradient receptor well. The

EPACML was originally developed to

compute DAFs and set regulatory levels

for specific constituents for the Toxicity

Characteristics Rule (TC Rule) 55 FR

11798 (March 29, 1990). Subsequently,

the EPACML has been used for multiple

RCRA delistings beginning with the

Reynolds Metals delisting decision 56

FR 67197 (December 30, 1991). The

EPACML accounts for:

• one-dimensional steady and

uniform advective flow;

• contaminant dispersion in the

longitudinal, lateral, and vertical

directions and;

• sorption

However, advances in groundwater

fate and transport have been made in

recent years and the Agency proposes

the use of a more advanced groundwater

fate and transport model for this RCRA

delisting. More specific details about the

DRAS can be found in 65 FR 58015

(September 27, 2000).

B. What Fate and Transport Model Does

the Agency Use in the DRAS for

Evaluating the Risks to Groundwater

From the Proposed Exempted Waste?

The Agency proposes to use the

EPACMTP (EPA’s Composite Model for

leachate migration with Transformation

Products) in this delisting

determination. The EPACMTP considers

the subsurface fate and transport of

chemical constituents. The EPACMTP is

capable of simulating the fate and

transport of dissolved contaminants

from a point of release at the base of a

waste management unit, through the

unsaturated zone and underlying

groundwater (saturated zone), to a

receptor well at an arbitrary

downstream location in the aquifer. The

model accounts for the following

mechanisms affecting contaminant

migration: transport by advection and

dispersion, retardation resulting from

reversible linear or nonlinear

equilibrium adsorption onto the soil and

aquifer solid phase, and biochemical

degradation processes (EPACMTP

Background Document and User’s

Guide, 1996).

C. Why Is the EPACMTP Fate and

Transport Model an Improvement Over

the EPACML?

The modeling approach used for this

proposed rulemaking includes three

major categories of enhancements over

the EPACML. The enhancements

include:

1—Incorporation of additional fate and

transport processes (e.g., degradation of

chemical constituents);

2—Use of enhanced flow and transport

solution algorithms and techniques (e.g.,

three-dimensional transport) and;

3—Revision of the Monte Carlo methodology

(e.g., site-based implementation of

available input data) (EPACMTP

Background Document and User’s Guide,

1996)

A Discussion of the key

enhancements which have been

implemented in the EPACMTP is

presented here and the details are

provided in the background documents

to the proposed 1995 Hazardous Waste

Identification Rule (HWIR) (60 FR

66344, December 21, 1995). The

background documents are available

through the RCRA HWIR FR proposal

docket (60 FR 66344, December 21,

1995). The EPACML was limited to

conditions of uniform groundwater

flow. It could not handle accurately the

conditions of significant groundwater

mounding and non-uniform

groundwater flow due to a high rate of

infiltration from the waste units. These

conditions increase the transverse

horizontal as well as the vertical

spreading of a contaminant plume. The

EPACMTP accounts for these effects

directly by simulating groundwater flow

in the vertical as well as horizontal

directions.

The EPACMTP can simulate fate and

transport of metals, taking into account

geochemical influences on the mobility

of metals. The EPA’s MINTEQA2 metals

speciation model is used to generate

effective sorption isotherms for

individual metals, corresponding to a

range of geochemical conditions

(EPACMTP Metals Background

Document, 1996). The transport

modules in EPACMTP have been

enhanced to incorporate the nonlinear

MINTEQ sorption isotherms. This

enhancement provides the model with

the capability to simulate, in the

unsaturated and in the saturated zones,

the impact of pH, leachate organic

matter, natural organic matter, iron

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules 75639

hydroxide and the presence of other

ions in the groundwater on the mobility

of metals. The saturated zone module

implemented in the EPACML was based

on a Gaussian distribution of

concentration of a chemical constituent

in the saturated zone. The module also

used an approximation to account for

the initial mixing of the contaminant

entering at the water table (saturated

zone) underneath the waste unit. The

module accounting for initial mixing in

the EPACML could lead to unrealistic

groundwater concentrations. The

enhanced EPACMTP model

incorporates a direct linkage between

the unsaturated zone and saturated zone

modules which overcomes these

limitations of the EPACML.

To enable a greater flexibility and

range of conditions that can be modeled,

the analytical saturated zone transport

module has been replaced with a

numerical module, based on the highly

efficient state-of-the-art Laplace

Transform Galerkin (LTG) technique

(EPACMTP Background Document and

User’s Guide, 1996). The enhanced

module can simulate the anisotropic,

non-uniform groundwater flow, and

transient, finite source, conditions. The

latter requires the model to calculate a

maximum receptor well concentration

over a finite time horizon, rather than

just the steady state concentration

which was calculated by the EPACML.

The saturated zone modules have been

implemented to provide either a fully

three-dimensional (3D) solution, or a

highly efficient quasi-3D solution. The

latter has been implemented for Monte

Carlo applications and provides nearly

the same accuracy as the fully three

dimensional option but is more

computationally efficient. Both the

unsaturated zone and the saturated zone

transport modules can accommodate the

formation and the transport of parent as

well as of the transformation products.

A highly efficient semi-analytical

unsaturated zone transport module has

been incorporated to handle the

transport of metals in the unsaturated

zone and can use MINTEQA2 derived

linear or nonlinear sorption isotherms.

Conventional numerical solution

techniques are inadequate to handle

extremely nonlinear isotherms. An

enhanced method-of-characteristic

based solution has been implemented

which overcomes these problems and

thereby enables the simulation of metals

transport in the Monte Carlo framework.

Non-linearity in the metals sorption

isotherms is primarily of concern at

higher concentration values; for low

concentrations, the isotherms are linear

or close to linear. Because of the

attenuation in the unsaturated zone, and

the subsequent dilution in the saturated

zone, concentrations in the saturated

zone are usually low enough so that

properly linearized isotherms are used

by the model in the saturated zone

without significant errors.

The internal routines in the model

which determine placement of the

receptor well relative to the areal extent

of the contaminant plume have been

revised and enhanced. The calculation

of the areal extent of the plume has been

revised to take into consideration the

dimensions of the waste unit. The logic

for placing a receptor well inside the

plume limits has been improved to

eliminate a bias towards larger waste

unit areas and to ensure that the

placement of the well inside these

limits, for a given radial distance from

the unit, is truly randomly uniform.

However, for this proposal, the closest

drinking water well is located anywhere

on the downgradient side of the waste

unit.

The data sources from which

parameter distributions for nationwide

Monte Carlo assessments are obtained

have been evaluated, and where

appropriate, have been revised to make

use of the latest data available for

modeling. Leachate rates for Subtitle D

waste units have been revised using the

latest version of the HELP model with

the revised data inputs. Source specific

input parameters (e.g., waste unit area

and volume) have been developed for

various different types of industrial

waste units besides landfills. Input

values for the groundwater related

parameters have been revised to utilize

information from a nationwide industry

survey of actual contaminated sites. The

original version of the model was

implemented for Monte Carlo

assessments assuming continuous

source (infinite source) conditions only.

This methodology did not take into

account the finite volume and/or

operational life of waste units. The

EPACMTP model has been

implemented for Monte Carlo

assessments of either continuous source

or finite source scenarios. In the latter

scenario, predicted groundwater impact

is not only based on the concentrations

of contaminants in the leachate, but also

on the amount of constituent in the

waste unit and/or the operational life of

the unit.

The landfill is taken to be filled to

capacity and covered when leaching

begins. The time period during which

the landfill is filled-up, usually on the

order of 20 years, is considered to be

small relative to the time required to

leach all of the constituent mass out of

the landfill. The model simulation

results indicate that this assumption is

not unreasonable; the model calculated

leaching duration is typically on the

order of several hundred years. The

leachate flux, or infiltration rate, is

determined using the HELP model. The

net infiltration rate is calculated using a

water balance approach, which

considers precipitation, evapotranspiration, and surface run-off. The

HELP model was used to calculate

landfill infiltration rates for a

representative subtitle D landfill with 2-

foot earthen cover, and no liner or

leachate collection system, using

climatic data from 97 climatic stations

located throughout the United States.

These correspond to the reasonable

worst case assumptions as explained in

the HWIR Risk Assessment Background

Document for the HWIR proposed

notice 60 FR 66344 (December 21,

1995). Additional details on the

methodologies used by the EPACMTP to

derive DAFs for waste constituents

modeled for the landfill scenario are

presented in the Background Documents

for the proposed HWIR rule. See 60 FR

66344 (December 21, 1995). The fraction

of waste in the landfill is assigned a

uniform distribution with lower and

upper limits of 0.036 and 1.0,

respectively, based on analysis of waste

composition in Subtitle D landfills. The

lower bound assures that the waste unit

will always contain a minimum amount

of the waste of concern. The waste

density is assigned a value based on

reported densities of hazardous waste,

and varies between 0.7 and 2.1 g/cm3.

The area of the surface impoundment

and the impoundment depth used by

the EPACMTP are obtained from the

EPA’s Office of Solid Waste Subtitle D

Industrial Survey and were entered into

the Monte Carlo analyses as

distributions. The sediment layer at the

base of the impoundment is taken to be

2 feet thick and to have an effective

equivalent saturated conductivity of

10 minus;7 cm/s. These values were

selected in recognition of the fact that

most non-hazardous waste surface

impoundments do have some kind of

liner in place. Additional details on the

methodologies used by the EPACMTP to

derive DAFs for waste constituents

modeled for the surface impoundment

waste management scenario are

presented in the Background Documents

for the 1995 proposed HWIR rule. See

60 FR 66344 (December 21, 1995).

D. Has the EPACMTP Methodology Been

Formally Reviewed?

The Science Advisory Board (SAB), a

public advisory group that provides

information and advice to the EPA,

reviewed the EPACMTP model as part

of a continuing effort to provide

75640 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules

improvements in the development and

external peer review of environmental

regulatory models. Overall, the SAB

commended the Agency for making

significant enhancements to the

EPACMTP’s predecessor, the EPACML

and for responding to previous SAB

suggestions. The SAB also concluded

that the mathematical formulation

incorporating daughter products into

the model appeared to be correct and

that the site-based approach using

hydrogeologic regions is superior to the

previous approach used in EPACML.

The model underwent public comment

during the 1995 proposed HWIR. See 60

FR 66344 (December 21, 1995).

E. Has the Agency Modified the

EPACMTP as Utilized in the HWIR

Proposal?

The EPACMTP, as developed for

HWIR, determined the DAF using a

Monte Carlo approach that selected, at

random, a waste volume from a range of

waste volumes identified in EPA’s 1987

Subtitle D landfill survey. In delisting

determinations, the waste volume of the

petitioner is known. Therefore,

application of EPACMTP to the

delisting program has been modified to

evaluate the specific waste volume. The

Agency modified the DAFs determined

under the HWIR proposal to account for

a known waste volume. To generate

waste volume-specific DAFs, EPA

developed ‘‘scaling factors’’ to modify

DAFs developed for HWIR (based on the

entire range of disposal unit areas) to

DAFs for delisting waste volumes. This

was accomplished by computing a 90th

percentile DAF for a conservative

chemical for 10 specific waste volumes

(ranging from 1,000 cubic yards to

300,000 cubic yards) for each waste

management scenario (landfill and

surface impoundment). The Agency

assumed that DAFs for a specific waste

volume are linearly related to DAFs

developed by EPACMTP for the HWIR.

DAF scaling factors were computed for

the ten increment waste volumes. Using

these ten scaling factor DAFs, regression

equations were developed for each

waste management scenario to provide

a continuum of DAF scaling factors as

a function of waste volume.

The regression equations are coded

into the DRAS program which then

automatically adjusts the DAF for the

waste volume of the petitioner. The

method used to verify the scaling factor

approach is presented in the document,

Application of EPACMTP to Region 6

Delisting Program: Development of

Volume-adjusted Dilution Attenuation

Factors (1996). For the landfill waste

management scenario, the DAF scaling

factors ranged from 9.5 for 10,000 cu.

yard to approximately 1.0 for waste

volumes greater than 200,000 cu. yards.

Therefore, for solid waste volumes

greater than 200,000 cu. yards, the waste

volume-specific DAF is the same as the

DAF computed for the proposed HWIR.

The regression equation that can be

used to determine the DAF scaling

factor (DSF) as a function of waste

volume (in cubic yards) for the landfill

waste management unit is: DSF =

6152.7* (waste volume)-0.7135. The

correlation coefficient of this regression

equation is 0.99, indicating a good fit of

this line to the data points. DAF scaling

factors for surface impoundment waste

volumes ranged from 2.4 for 2,000 cu.

yards to approximately 1.0 for 100,000

cu. yards. For liquid waste volumes

greater than 200,000 cu. yards, the waste

volume-specific DAF is the same as the

DAF computed for the proposed HWIR.

The regression equation for DAF scaling

factor (DSF) as a function of waste

volume for surface impoundment

wastes is: DSF = 14.2* (waste

volume) -0.2288. The correlation

coefficient of this regression equation is

also 0.99, indicating an extremely good

fit of this line to the data points.

F. What Modifications Have Been Made

to the DRAS Since its Proposal on

September 27, 2000?

Several revisions have been made to

the DRAS program in order to improve

the modeling. Specifically, the

groundwater inhalation pathway was

revised to reflect recent advances in

modeling household inhalation from

home water use (e.g., showering). The

basis for estimating the concentration of

constituents in the indoor air is based

on the mass transfer of constituent from

water to shower air. The initial version

of DRAS used a fate and transport

model described by McKone and Bogen

(1982) which predicted the highest

waste concentration emitted from the

water into the air during a given water

use period (e.g., 10-minute shower).

This method was revised to more

accurately predict the average

concentration occurring during the

exposure event.

The revised model used in this

analysis is based the equations

presented in McKone (1987). The

shower model estimates the change in

the shower (or bathroom or household)

air concentration based on the mass of

constituent lost by the water (fraction

emitted or emission rate) and the air

exchange rate between the various

model compartments (shower, the rest

of the bathroom, and the rest of the

house). The resulting differential

equations were solved using finite

difference numerical integration. The

average air concentration in the shower

and bathroom are obtained by averaging

the concentrations obtained for each

time step over the duration of the

exposure event (shower and bathroom

use). These concentrations and the

durations of daily exposure are used to

estimate risk from inhalation exposures

to residential use of groundwater.

Further, improvements were made to

more accurately reflect the transfer

efficiency of the waste constituent from

the groundwater to the air compartment.

The fraction emitted from the bathroom

or household water use is a function of

the input transfer efficiency (or

maximum fraction emitted) and the

driving force for mass transfer (the

differential between air saturation

concentration at air/water interface and

bulk air concentration). For example, in

the shower compartment, the

constituent emission rate is estimated

from the change in the shower water

concentration as the water falls through

the air. The shower emissions can be

modeled based on falling droplets as a

means of estimating the surface-area-tovolume ratio for mass transfer and the

residence time of the water in the

shower compartment, assuming the

compound concentration in the gas

phase is constant over the time frame of

the droplet fall. By assuming the drops

fall at terminal velocity, the surfacearea-to-volume ratio and the residence

time can be determined based solely on

droplet size. A droplet size of

approximately 1 mm (0.1 cm) was

selected. The terminal velocity for the

selected droplet size is approximately

400 cm/s. The fraction of constituent

emitted from a water droplet at any

given time can then be calculated.

The equations used to predict surface

volatilization from a landfill have been

modified to more accurately reflect true

waste concentration releases. The

previous version of DRAS used Farmer’s

equation to estimate the emission rate of

volatiles from the surface of the landfill.

Farmer’s equation assumes that the

emission originates as volatiles in

liquids trapped in the pore spaces

between solid particles of waste. The

volatiles evaporate from the liquid and

are emitted from the landfill following

gaseous diffusion through the solid

waste particles and soil cover to the

surface of the landfill. Farmer’s equation

requires the mole fraction of a given

volatile constituent in the liquid in

order to calculate the emission. The

previous version of DRAS used the

TCLP value of a volatile constituent in

the waste to approximate the mole

fraction of a given constituent in the

pore liquid. Since the TCLP test

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules 75641

includes a 20-fold dilution, the

calculation might underestimate the

available concentration of volatiles in

freshly deposited waste. The DRAS has

been revised to use Shen’s modification

of Farmer’s equation, described in U.S.

EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards’ 1984 Evaluation and

Selection of Models for Estimating Air

Emissions from Hazardous Waste

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal

Facilities. EPA–450/3–84–020. Shen

took the simplified version of Farmer’s

equation for vapor flux from a soil

surface and converted it to an emission

rate by multiplying it by the exposed

landfill area. Shen’s modification uses

the total waste constituent

concentration (weight fraction in the

bulk waste) to approximate the mole

fraction of that constituent in the liquid

phase.

In estimating the amount of a given

waste constituent that is released to

surface water and eventually becomes

freely dissolved in the water column,

previous delisting petitions and the

earlier version of the DRAS used the

maximum observed TCLP concentration

in waste as the total amount of the waste

constituent available for erosion.

Further, the former method assumed

that all of the constituent mass that

reached the stream, based on TCLP,

became dissolved in the aqueous phase.

Assuming complete conversion to a

dissolved state is overly conservative

and not in agreement with recent

Agency methodology. In the revised

DRAS, the total waste constituent

concentration is used to estimate the

constituent mass that reaches the

stream. The portion of the waste

constituent that becomes freely

dissolved is determined by an estimate

of partitioning between suspended

solids and the aqueous phase. This

methodology is described in U.S. EPA’s

1998 Human Health Risk Assessment

Protocol for Hazardous Waste

Combustion Facilities, Volume One.

Peer Review Draft. EPA530–D–98–001A.

Recent developments in mercury

partitioning described in the Mercury

Report to Congress led to another

revision to the surface water pathway.

The DRAS was modified to account for

bioaccumulation of methyl mercury as a

result of the release of mercury into the

surface water column. The primary

human health hazard posed by the

release of mercury into surface water is

through bioaccumulation of methyl

mercury in fish followed by human

consumption of the contaminated fish.

Biological processes in surface water

cause the conversion, or methylation, of

elemental mercury to methyl mercury.

In accordance with the Human Health

Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous

Waste Combustion Facilities, Volume

One. Peer Review Draft, 15% of mercury

in the water column is assumed to be

converted to methyl mercury. This

fraction is then used, along with the

current bioaccummulation factor, to

determine the predicted concentration

of methyl mercury in fish tissue.

II. Overview Information

A. What Action Is EPA Proposing?

The EPA is proposing:

(1) To grant Eastman’s petition to have its

wastewater treatment sludge excluded, or

delisted, from the definition of a hazardous

waste, subject to certain continued

verification and monitoring conditions; and

(2) To use a fate and transport model to

evaluate the potential impact of the

petitioned waste on human health and the

environment. The Agency would use this

model to predict the concentration of

hazardous constituents released from the

petitioned waste, once it is disposed.

B. Why Is EPA Proposing To Approve

This Delisting?

Eastman’s petition requests a delisting

for listed hazardous wastes. Eastman

does not believe that the petitioned

waste meets the criteria for which EPA

listed it. Eastman also believes no

additional constituents or factors could

cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA’s

review of this petition included

consideration of the original listing

criteria, and the additional factors

required by the Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).

See section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.

6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)–(4). In

making the 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, the EPA agrees with the

petitioner that the waste is

nonhazardous with respect to the

original listing criteria. (If the EPA had

found, based on this review, that the

waste remained hazardous based on the

factors for which the waste were

originally listed, EPA would have

proposed to deny the petition.) The EPA

evaluated the waste with respect to

other factors or criteria to assess

whether there is a reasonable basis to

believe that such additional factors

could cause the waste to be hazardous.

The EPA considered whether the waste

is acutely toxic, the concentration of the

constituents in the waste, their tendency

to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their

persistence in the environment once

released from the waste, plausible and

specific types of management of the

petitioned waste, the quantities of waste

generated, and waste variability. The

EPA believes that the petitioned waste

does not meet these criteria. EPA’s

proposed decision to delist waste from

Eastman’s facility is based on the

information submitted in support of

today’s rule, i.e., descriptions of the

waste water treatment system,

incinerator, and analytical data from the

Longview facility.

C. How Will Eastman Manage the Waste

if it Is Delisted?

Eastman currently disposes of the

petitioned waste (wastewater treatment

sludge) generated at its facility in an onsite, state permitted solid waste landfill

after the sludge has been incinerated.

The ash from the incineration process

was delisted by EPA in June 1996. If the

waste is delisted it will meet the criteria

for disposal in a Subtitle D landfill

without incineration.

The incinerator is a RCRA Subtitle C

regulated unit permitted by the Texas

Natural Resource Conservation

Commission. This proposed decision

will not affect the current regulatory

controls on the incineration unit.

D. When Would EPA Finalize the

Proposed Delisting?

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

until it addresses all timely public

comments (including those at public

hearings, if any) on today’s proposal.

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

6920(b)(1),allows rules to become

effective in less than six months when

the regulated community does not need

the six-month period to come into

compliance. That is the case here,

because this rule, if finalized, would

reduce the existing requirements for

persons generating hazardous wastes.

The 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 today’s

exclusion under the Federal RCRA

delisting program, only States subject to

Federal RCRA delisting provisions

would be affected. This would exclude

75642 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules

two categories of States: States having a

dual system that includes Federal RCRA

requirements and their own

requirements, and States who have

received authorization from EPA to

make their own delisting decisions.

Here are the details: We allow states

to impose their own non-RCRA

regulatory requirements that are more

stringent than EPA’s, under section

3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.A. § 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, we urge

petitioners to contact the State

regulatory authority to establish the

status of their wastes under the State

law.

The EPA has also authorized some

States (for example, Louisiana, Georgia,

Illinois) to administer a RCRA delisting

program in place of the Federal

program, that is, to make State delisting

decisions. Therefore, this exclusion

does not apply in those authorized

States unless that State makes the rule

part of its authorized program. If

Eastman transports the petitioned waste

to or manages the waste in any State

with delisting authorization, Eastman

must obtain delisting authorization from

that State before they can manage the

waste as nonhazardous in the State.

III. Background

A. What Is the History of the Delisting

Program?

The 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. The EPA has amended

this list several times and published it

in §§ 261.31 and 261.32.

We list these wastes as hazardous

because: (1) They 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

the Agency because they do not

consider the wastes 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 the listed wastes. The criteria

for which EPA lists a waste are in Part

261 and in the background documents

for the listed wastes.

In addition, under § 260.22, a

petitioner must prove that the waste

does not exhibit any of the hazardous

waste characteristics (that is,

ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and

toxicity) 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

wastes.)

Generators remain obligated under

RCRA to confirm whether their waste

remains nonhazardous based on the

hazardous waste characteristics even if

EPA has ‘‘delisted’’ the wastes.

C. What Factors Must EPA Consider in

Deciding Whether To Grant a Delisting

Petition?

Besides considering the criteria in

§ 260.22(a) and 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 we listed the waste if a

reasonable basis exists that these

additional factors could cause the waste

to be hazardous.

The EPA must also consider as

hazardous wastes 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 ‘‘derivedfrom’’ rules, respectively. These wastes

are also eligible for exclusion and

remain hazardous wastes until

excluded.

The ‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derived-from’’

rules are now final, after having been

vacated, remanded, and reinstated. On

December 6, 1991, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

vacated the ‘‘mixture/derived from’’

rules and remanded them to EPA on

procedural grounds. See Shell Oil Co. v.

EPA., 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1991). EPA

reinstated the mixture and derived-from

rules, and solicited comments on other

ways to regulate waste mixtures and

residues. See 57 FR 7628 (March 3,

1992). These rules became final on

October 30, 1992. See (57 FR 49278).

Consult these references for more

information about mixtures derived

from wastes.

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste Data

A. What Waste Did Eastman Petition

EPA To Delist?

On February 4, 2000, Eastman

petitioned the EPA to exclude from the

lists of hazardous waste contained in

§§ 261.31 and 261.32, a waste byproduct (dewatered sludge from the

wastewater treatment plant) which falls

under the classification of listed waste

because of the ‘‘derived from’’ rule in

RCRA 40 CFR 261.3. Specifically, in its

petition, Eastman Chemical Company,

Texas Operations, located in Longview,

Texas, requested that EPA grant an

exclusion for 82,100 cubic yards per

year of dewatered sludge resulting from

its hazardous waste treatment process.

The resulting waste is listed, in

accordance with §261.3(c)(2)(i) (i.e., the

‘‘derived from’’ rule).

B. What Is Eastman Chemical Company,

and What Process Does it use?

Eastman occupies approximately

6,000 acres in Longview, Texas. The

facility owns and operates an organic

chemical and plastics manufacturing

facility in Longview, Texas. During

manufacturing operations, various waste

waters are generated such as process

waste water, blowdowns from boilers,

cooling towers, and the incinerators,

and some storm water. Process waste

waters from the facility, blowdowns,

recovered ground water, leachate from

the RCRA hazardous waste landfill, and

some storm water are routed to an

activated sludge wastewater treatment

plant (WWTP). A sludge is generated

from the waste water treatment system,

which is dewatered and is currently

sent to a fluidized bed incinerator (FBI)

for thermal treatment. The resulting

delisted FBI ash is disposed of in a solid

waste landfill.

Influent to the waste water treatment

plant is a combination of hazardous and

non-hazardous waste. During treatment

of the influent waste water, biological

sludge is generated and dewatered. The

wastewater treatment sludge currently

falls under the classification of listed

waste according to RCRA 40 CFR

261.3(c)(2)(i) because of the ‘‘derived

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules 75643

from’’ rule. The waste codes of the

constituents of concern are EPA

Hazardous Waste Nos. F001, F002,

F003, F005, K009, K010, U001, U002,

U028, U031, U069, U088, U112, U115,

U117, U122, U140, U147, U154, U159,

U161, U220, U226, U239 and U359.

Table 1 lists the constituents of

concern for these waste codes.

TABLE 1.—HAZARDOUS WASTE CODES ASSOCIATED WITH WASTE STREAMS

Waste code Basis for characteristics/listing

F001 .......................... 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-trichlorofluoroethane, orthodichlorobenzene, trichlorofluoromethane.

F003 .......................... Not applicable.

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

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-ethylhexyl) phthalate.

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

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

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

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

U115 .......................... Ethylene Oxide.

U117 .......................... Ethyl ether.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U226 .......................... 1,1,1 Trichloroethane (Methyl chloroform).

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

U359 .......................... Ethylene Glycol monoethyl ether.

C. How Did Eastman Sample and

Analyze the Waste Data in This

Petition?

To support its petition, Eastman

submitted:

(1) descriptions of its waste water

treatment system associated with

petitioned wastes;

(2) results of the total constituent list

for 40 CFR Part 264 Appendix IX

volatiles, semivolatiles, and metals

except pesticides, herbicides, and PCBs;

(3) results of the constituent list for

Appendix IX on Toxicity Characteristic

Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract for

volatiles, semivolatiles, and metals;

(4) results for reactive sulfide,

(5) results for reactive cyanide;

(6) results for pH;

(7) results of the metals

concentrations using multiple pH

extraction fluids;

(8) information and results from

testing of the fluidized bed incinerator’s

compliance testing and

(9) results from oil and grease

analysis.

D. What Were the Results of Eastman’s

Analysis?

The EPA believes that the

descriptions of the Eastman hazardous

waste process and analytical

characterization provide a reasonable

basis to grant Eastman’s petition for an

exclusion of the wastewater treatment

sludge. The EPA believes the data

submitted in support of the petition

show Eastman’s process can render the

wastewater treatment sludge nonhazardous. The EPA has reviewed the

sampling procedures used by Eastman

and has determined they satisfy EPA

criteria for collecting representative

samples of the variations in constituent

concentrations in the wastewater

treatment sludge. The data submitted in

support of the petition show that

constituents in Eastman’s waste are

presently below health-based levels

used in the delisting decision-making.

The EPA believes that Eastman has

successfully demonstrated that the

wastewater treatment sludge is nonhazardous.

Eastman Chemical also conducted

additional sampling at the pHs of 4.93,

7.0, and 10.1 to simulate whether the

wastes would remain stable if disposed

in a wide range of landfill pH

environments. The highest level of

leaching occurred at pH 4.93. The

leachate concentrations for barium,

nickel and zinc were below the

maximum leachate concentration listed

in Table II.

Eastman also provide data from its

1998 trial burn to demonstrate that the

FBI incinerator met the required organic

destruction and removal efficiency for

RCRA incinerators and that the unit also

met the Boiler and Industrial Furnace

Tier I limits for metals.

E. How did EPA Evaluate the Risk of

Delisting the Waste?

For this delisting determination, EPA

used such information gathered to

identify plausible exposure routes (i.e.,

ground water, surface water, air) for

hazardous constituents present in the

petitioned waste. The EPA determined

that disposal in a Subtitle D landfill is

the most reasonable, worst-case disposal

scenario for Eastman’s petitioned waste.

EPA applied the Delisting Risk

Assessment Software (DRAS) described

above, to predict the maximum

allowable concentrations of hazardous

constituents that may release from the

petitioned waste after disposal and

determined the potential impact of the

disposal of Eastman’s petitioned waste

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

75644 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules

program to estimate the constituent

concentrations in the ground water at a

hypothetical receptor well down

gradient from the disposal site. Using

the established an acceptable risk level

(carcinogenic risk of 10¥5 and noncancer hazard index of 0.1), the DRAS

program can back-calculate 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 the 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

groundwater.

The 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, and that 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 scenario

resulted in conservative values for the

compliance-point concentrations and

ensured that the waste, once removed

from hazardous waste regulation, may

not pose a significant threat to human

health or the environment.

Similarly, the DRAS used 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 wind-blown

particulate from the landfill). As in the

ground water analyses, the DRAS uses

the established acceptable risk level, the

health-based data and standard risk

assessment and exposure algorithms to

predicts 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 site-specific factors

when applying the fate and transport

model.

The EPA also considers the

applicability of ground water

monitoring data during the evaluation of

delisting petitions. In this case, Eastman

has never directly disposed of this

material in its solid waste landfill, so no

representative data exists. Therefore,

EPA has determined that it would be

unnecessary to request ground water

monitoring data.

From the evaluation of Eastman’s

delisting petition, EPA developed a list

of constituents for the verification

testing conditions. Proposed maximum

allowable leachable concentrations for

these constituents were derived by backcalculating from the delisting healthbased levels through the proposed fate

and transport model for a landfill

management scenario. These

concentrations (i.e., ‘‘delisting levels’’)

are part of the proposed verification

testing conditions of the exclusion.

The EPA believes that the

descriptions of Eastman’s hazardous

waste process and analytical

characterization, in conjunction with

the proposed testing requirements (as

discussed later in this notice) provide a

reasonable basis 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. Thus, EPA should grant

Eastman’s petition for a conditional

exclusion of the wastewater treatment

sludge.

The EPA Region 6 Delisting Program

guidance document states that the

appropriate fate and effect model will be

used to determine the effect the

petitioned waste could have on human

health if it is not managed as a

hazardous waste. Specifically, the

model considers the maximum

estimated waste volume and the

maximum reported leachate

concentrations as inputs to estimate the

constituent concentrations in the

ground water at a hypothetical receptor

well downgradient from the disposal

site. The calculated receptor well

concentrations (referred to as

compliance-point concentrations) are

then compared directly to the healthbased levels used in delisting decisionmaking for hazardous constituents of

concern. EPA Region 6 is proposing the

DRAS as the appropriate model for this

delisting. This subsection presents an

evaluation of the potential for ground

water contamination for the petitioned

waste using the DRAS.

The EPA considered the

appropriateness of alternative waste

management scenarios for Eastman’s

wastewater treatment sludge. The EPA

decided, based on the information

provided in the petition, that disposal of

the wastewater treatment sludge in a

municipal solid waste landfill is the

most reasonable, worst-case scenario for

the wastewater treatment sludge. Under

a landfill disposal scenario, the major

exposure route of concern for any

hazardous constituents would be

ingestion of contaminated ground water.

The EPA, therefore, evaluated Eastman’s

petitioned waste using DRAS which

predicts the potential for ground water

contamination from waste placed in a

landfill.

For the evaluation of Eastman’s

petitioned waste, EPA used the DRAS to

evaluate the mobility of the hazardous

constituents detected in the extract of

samples of Eastman’s wastewater

treatment sludge. Total analysis was

also utilized for the wastewater

treatment sludge. The maximum annual

waste volume for Eastman is 82,100

cubic yards per year. The DAFs are

currently calculated assuming an

ongoing process generates waste for 20

years.

Analytical data for the wastewater

treatment sludge samples were used in

the model. The data summaries for

detected constituents are presented in

Tables II and III.

The EPA’s evaluation of the

wastewater treatment sludge is based on

the maximum reported Total and TCLP

concentrations (See Table II). Based on

the DRAS, the petitioned waste should

be delisted because no constituents of

concern exceed the delisting

concentrations.

TABLE II.—MAXIMUM TOTAL AND TCLP CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE 1

Constituent

Total Constituent Analyses (mg/kg)TCLP Leachate

Concentration

(mg/l)

Antimony .............................................................................................................................................................. 1.5 <0.050

Barium .................................................................................................................................................................. 13 0.083

Chromium ............................................................................................................................................................ 2.5 <0.010

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules 75645

TABLE II.—MAXIMUM TOTAL AND TCLP CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE 1—

Continued

Constituent

Total Constituent Analyses (mg/kg)TCLP Leachate

Concentration

(mg/l)

Cobalt ................................................................................................................................................................... 3.5 0.062

Lead ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2.1 <0.050

Mercury ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.067 <0.0015

Nickel ................................................................................................................................................................... 20 0.18

Selenium .............................................................................................................................................................. 1.5 0.065

Silver .................................................................................................................................................................... 0.18 <0.005

Vanadium ............................................................................................................................................................. 1.7 0.014

Zinc ...................................................................................................................................................................... 97 1.7

Acenaphthene ...................................................................................................................................................... 1.8 <0.010

Acetone ................................................................................................................................................................ <2.5 4.0

bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthlate ..................................................................................................................................... 4.1 <0.010

2-Butanone .......................................................................................................................................................... <2.5 1.4

Chloroform ........................................................................................................................................................... <0.25 0.009

Fluorene ............................................................................................................................................................... 2.0 <0.010

Methanol .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.052 <5.0

Methylene Chloride .............................................................................................................................................. <0.25 0.15

2-Methyl naphthalene .......................................................................................................................................... 7.4 <0.010

Naphthalene ......................................................................................................................................................... 5.5 <0.010

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.

TABLE III.—MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE

CONCENTRATIONS OF CONSTITUENTS

IN LEACHATE

Constituent

Maximum allowable leachate

concentration

(mg/l)

Antimony ............................. 0.0515

Barium ................................ 7.3

Chromium ........................... 5.0

Cobalt ................................. 2.25

Lead .................................... 5.0

Mercury ............................... 0.00115

Nickel .................................. 2.83

Selenium ............................. 0.22

Silver ................................... 0.384

Vanadium ............................ 2.11

Zinc ..................................... 28

Acenaphthene ..................... 1.25

Acetone ............................... 7.13

bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthlate .... 0.28

2-Butanone ......................... 48.2

Chloroform .......................... 0.0099

Fluorene .............................. 0.55

Methanol ............................. 35.7

Methylene Chloride ............. 0.486

Naphthalene ....................... 0.0321

F. What Did EPA Conclude About

Eastman’s Analysis?

The EPA concluded, after reviewing

Eastman’s processes that no other

hazardous constituents of concern, other

than those for which tested, are likely to

be present or formed as reaction

products or by products in Eastman’s

waste. In addition, on the basis of

explanations and analytical data

provided by Eastman, pursuant to

§ 260.22, the EPA concludes that the

petitioned waste does not exhibit any of

the characteristics of ignitability,

corrosivity, or reactivity. See §§ 261.21,

261.22, and 261.23, respectively.

G. What Other Factors Did EPA

Consider?

During the evaluation of Eastman’s

petition, EPA also considered the

potential impact of the petitioned waste

via non-ground water routes (i.e., air

emission and surface runoff). With

regard to airborne dispersion in

particular, EPA believes that exposure

to airborne contaminants from

Eastman’s petitioned waste is unlikely.

Therefore, no appreciable air releases

are likely from Eastman’s waste under

any likely disposal conditions. The EPA

evaluated the potential hazards

resulting from the unlikely scenario of

airborne exposure to hazardous

constituents released from Eastman’s

waste 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 Eastman’s

Wastewater treatment sludge. A

description of EPA’s assessment of the

potential impact of Eastman’s waste,

regarding airborne dispersion of waste

contaminants, is presented in the RCRA

public docket for today’s proposed rule,

F–00–TXDEL–TXEASTMAN.

The EPA also considered the potential

impact of the petitioned waste via a

surface water route. The EPA believes

that containment structures at

municipal solid waste landfills can

effectively control surface water runoff,

as the Subtitle D regulations (See 56 FR

50978, October 9, 1991) prohibit

pollutant discharges into surface waters.

Furthermore, the concentrations of any

hazardous constituents dissolved in the

runoff will tend to be lower than the

levels in the TCLP leachate analyses

reported in today’s notice due to the

aggressive acidic medium used for

extraction in the TCLP. The EPA

believes that, in general, leachate

derived from the waste is unlikely to

directly enter a surface water body

without first traveling through the

saturated subsurface where dilution and

attenuation of hazardous constituents

will also occur. Leachable

concentrations provide a direct measure

of solubility of a toxic constituent in

water and are indicative of the fraction

of the constituent that may be mobilized

in surface water as well as ground

water.

Based on the reasons discussed above,

EPA believes that the contamination of

surface water through runoff from the

waste disposal area is very unlikely.

Nevertheless, EPA evaluated the

potential impacts on surface water if

Eastman’s waste were released from a

municipal solid waste landfill through

runoff and erosion. See the RCRA public

docket for today’s proposed rule for

further information on the potential

surface water impacts from runoff and

erosion. The estimated levels of the

hazardous constituents of concern in

surface water would be well below

health-based levels for human health, as

well as below EPA Chronic Water

Quality Criteria for aquatic organisms

(USEPA, OWRS, 1987). The EPA,

therefore, concluded that Eastman’s

wastewater treatment sludge is not a

present or potential substantial hazard

75646 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules

to human health and the environment

via the surface water exposure pathway.

H. What Is EPA’s Evaluation of This

Delisting Petition?

The descriptions of Eastman’s

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

exclusion. The data submitted in

support of the petition show that

constituents in the waste are below the

maximum allowable leachable

concentrations (see Table III). We

believe Eastman’s process will

substantially reduce the likelihood of

migration of hazardous constituents

from the petitioned waste. Eastman’s

process also minimizes short-term and

long-term threats from the petitioned

waste to human health and the

environment.

Thus, EPA believes we should grant

Eastman an exclusion for the

wastewater treatment sludge. The EPA

believes the data submitted in support

of the petition show Eastman’s process

can render the wastewater treatment

sludge nonhazardous.

We have reviewed the sampling

procedures used by Eastman and have

determined they satisfy EPA criteria for

collecting representative samples of

variable constituent concentrations in

the wastewater treatment sludge. The

data submitted in support of the petition

show that constituents in Eastman’s

waste are presently below the

compliance point concentrations used

in the delisting decision-making and

would not pose a substantial hazard to

the environment. The EPA believes that

Eastman has successfully demonstrated

that the wastewater treatment sludge is

nonhazardous.

The EPA therefore, proposes to grant

a conditional exclusion to the Eastman

Chemical Company, in Longview,

Texas, for the wastewater treatment

sludge described in its petition. The

EPA’s decision to conditionally exclude

this waste is based on descriptions of

the treatment activities associated with

the petitioned waste and

characterization of the wastewater

treatment sludge.

If we finalize the proposed rule, the

Agency will no longer regulate the

petitioned waste under parts 262

through 268 and the permitting

standards of part 270.

V. 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.

The text below gives the rationale and

details of those requirements.

(1) Delisting Levels

This paragraph provides the levels of

constituents for which Eastman must

test the leachate from the wastewater

treatment sludge, below which these

wastes would be considered

nonhazardous.

The EPA selected the set of inorganic

and organic constituents specified in

Paragraph (1) because of information in

the petition. We compiled the list from

the composition of the waste,

descriptions of Eastman’s treatment

process, 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

TCLP extract of the waste.

(2) Waste Holding and Handling

The purpose of this paragraph is to

ensure that any wastewater treatment

sludge which might contain hazardous

levels of inorganic and organic

constituents are managed and disposed

of in accordance with Subtitle C of

RCRA. If EPA determines that the data

collected under this condition do not

support the data provided in the

petition, the exclusion will not cover

the petitioned waste.

(3) Verification Testing Requirements

Although the wastewater treatment

sludge would be considered delisted

upon promulgation of the final rule,

EPA believes that conditional testing

requirements are still warranted to

ensure continued effectiveness of the

treatment process. During the initial

verification period, which is described

in paragraph (3)(A), Eastman must

perform quarterly sampling for a period

of one year to maintain the delisted

status of the waste. As an additional

condition of the initial verification

period, the waste must continue to be

processed in the incinerator prior to

disposal in a landfill. After successful

completion of the initial verification

period, which is 12 months from the

date of promulgation, the subsequent

verification period, which is described

in paragraph (3)(B), will begin. During

the subsequent verification period, the

waste may be either directly disposed in

a landfill or disposed as an ash in a

landfill with prior incineration.

(A) Testing: The EPA believes that

quarterly sampling of this waste is

adequate for a facility to collect

sufficient data to verify that the data

provided for the wastewater treatment

sludge in the 2000 petition, is

representative. Eastman may dispose of

the sludge as a non-hazardous waste

during the initial verification period if

the waste is processed as described in

the 1996 delisting exclusion and meets

the exclusion levels of the fluidized bed

incinerator ash.

If the data from the initial verification

period demonstrate that the treatment

process is effective, Eastman may

request subsequent verification testing.

EPA will notify Eastman, in writing, if

and when it may replace the testing

conditions in paragraph(3)(A)(i) with

the testing conditions in (3)(B).

(B) Subsequent Verification Testing:

The EPA believes that the

concentrations of the constituents of

concern in the wastewater treatment

sludge may vary over time. As a result,

to ensure that Eastman’s treatment

process can effectively handle any

variation in constituent concentrations

in the waste, we are proposing a

subsequent verification testing

condition.

The proposed subsequent testing

would verify that Eastman wastes are

similar to those sludges generated

during the initial verification testing. It

would also verify that the wastewater

treatment sludge does not exhibit

unacceptable levels of toxic

constituents. Eastman would begin

annual sampling on the anniversary

date of the final exclusion.

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions

Paragraph (4) would allow Eastman

the flexibility of modifying its processes

(for example, changes in equipment or

changes in operating conditions) to

improve its treatment process. However,

Eastman must prove the effectiveness of

the modified process and request

approval from the EPA. Eastman must

manage wastes generated during the

new process demonstration as

hazardous waste until they have

obtained written approval and

Paragraph (3) is satisfied.

(5) Data Submittals

To provide appropriate

documentation that Eastman’s facility is

properly treating the waste, Eastman

must compile, summarize, and keep

delisting records on-site for a minimum

of five years. They should keep all

analytical data obtained through

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 proposed exclusion is made

final, it will apply only to 82,100 cubic

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules 75647

yards of wastewater treatment sludge,

generated annually at the Eastman

facility after successful verification

testing.

We would require Eastman to file a

new delisting petition under any of the

following circumstances:

(a) If it uses any new manufacturing

or production process(es), or

significantly change from the current

process(es) described in its petition; or

(b) If it makes any changes that could

affect the composition or type of waste

generated.

Eastman must manage waste volumes

greater than 82,100 cubic yards of

wastewater treatment sludge as

hazardous until we grant a new

exclusion.

If this exclusion becomes final,

Eastman’s management of the wastes

covered by this petition would be

relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction.

Eastman would be required to either

treat, store, or dispose of the waste in an

on-site facility that has a State permit,

license, or is registered to manage

municipal or industrial solid waste. If

not, Eastman must ensure that it

delivers the waste to an off-site storage,

treatment, or disposal facility that has a

State permit, license, or is registered to

manage municipal or industrial solid

waste.

(6) Reopener Language

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 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 the Agency.

The EPA will evaluate the information

on which we 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.

The EPA believes that we have the

authority under RCRA and the

Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C.

§ 551 (1978) et seq., to reopen a delisting

decision. We may reopen a delisting

decision when we receive new

information that calls into question the

assumptions underlying the delisting.

The Agency believes a clear statement

of its authority in delistings is merited

in light of Agency experience. See

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

in the environment than the

concentrations predicted when

conducting the TCLP, thus leading the

Agency to repeal the delisting. If an

immediate threat to human health and

the environment presents itself, EPA

will continue to address these situations

case by case. Where necessary, EPA will

make a good cause finding to justify

emergency rulemaking. See APA § 553

(b).

(7) Notification Requirements

In order to adequately track wastes

that have been delisted, EPA is

requiring that Eastman provide a onetime notification to any State regulatory

agency through which or to which the

delisted waste is being carried. Eastman

currently intends to manage the

petitioned waste on-site. This

notification requirement must be met if

the waste is transported off-site.

Eastman must provide this notification

within 60 days of commencing this

activity.

B. What Happens if Eastman Violates

the Terms and Conditions?

If Eastman violates the terms and

conditions established in the exclusion,

the Agency will start procedures to

withdraw the exclusion. Where there is

an immediate threat to human health

and the environment, the Agency will

evaluate the need for enforcement

activities on a case-by-case basis. The

Agency expects Eastman to conduct the

appropriate waste analysis and comply

with the criteria explained above in

Paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the

exclusion.

VI. Public Comments

A. How Can I as an Interested Party

Submit Comments?

The EPA is requesting public

comments on this proposed decision.

Please send three copies of your

comments. Send two copies to William

Gallagher, Delisting Section,

Multimedia Planning and Permitting

Division (6PD–O), Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. Send a

third copy to the Texas Natural

Resource Conservation Commission,

12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas

78753. Identify your comments at the

top with this regulatory docket number:

‘‘F–00–TXDEL–EASTMAN.’’

You should submit requests for a

hearing to Carl Edlund, Director,

Multimedia Planning and Permitting

Division (6PD), Environmental

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas 75202.

B. How May I Review the Docket or

Obtain Copies of the Proposed

Exclusion?

You may review the RCRA regulatory

docket for this proposed rule at the

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

Texas 75202. It is available for viewing

in the EPA Freedom of Information Act

Review Room from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding

Federal holidays. Call (214) 665–6444

for appointments. The public may copy

material from any regulatory docket at

no cost for the first 100 pages, and at

fifteen cents per page for additional

copies.

VII. Regulatory Impact

Under Executive Order 12866, EPA

must conduct an ‘‘assessment of the

potential costs and benefits’’ for all

‘‘significant’’ regulatory actions.

The proposal to grant an exclusion is

not significant, since its effect, if

promulgated, would be to reduce the

overall costs and economic impact of

EPA’s hazardous waste management

regulations. This reduction would be

achieved by excluding waste generated

at a specific facility from EPA’s lists of

hazardous wastes, thus enabling a

facility to manage its waste as

nonhazardous.

Because there is no additional impact

from today’s proposed rule, this

proposal would not be a significant

regulation, and no cost/benefit

assessment is required. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has also

exempted this rule from the requirement

for OMB review under Section (6) of

Executive Order 12866.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 601–612, whenever an agency

is required to publish a general notice

of rulemaking for any proposed or final

rule, it must prepare and make available

for public comment a regulatory

flexibility analysis which describes the

impact of the rule on small entities (that

is, small businesses, small

organizations, and small governmental

jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility

analysis is required, however, if the

75648 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Administrator or delegated

representative certifies that the rule will

not have any impact on small entities.

This rule, if promulgated, will not

have an adverse economic impact on

small entities since its effect would be

to reduce the overall costs of EPA’s

hazardous waste regulations and would

be limited to one facility. Accordingly,

I hereby certify that this proposed

regulation, if promulgated, will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

This regulation, therefore, does not

require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act

Information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated with

this proposed rule have been approved

by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under the provisions of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(Public Law 96–511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq.) and have been assigned OMB

Control Number 2050–0053.

X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),

Public Law 104–4, which was signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

generally must prepare a written

statement for rules with Federal

mandates that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, and tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year.

When such a statement is required for

EPA rules, under section 205 of the

UMRA EPA must identify and consider

alternatives, including the least costly,

most cost-effective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The EPA must select that

alternative, unless the Administrator

explains in the final rule why it was not

selected or it is inconsistent with law.

Before EPA establishes regulatory

requirements that may significantly or

uniquely affect small governments,

including tribal governments, it must

develop under section 203 of the UMRA

a small government agency plan. The

plan must provide for notifying

potentially affected small governments,

giving them meaningful and timely

input in the development of EPA

regulatory proposals with significant

Federal intergovernmental mandates,

and informing, educating, and advising

them on compliance with the regulatory

requirements.

The UMRA generally defines a

Federal mandate for regulatory purposes

as one that imposes an enforceable duty

upon state, local, or tribal governments

or the private sector.

The EPA finds that today’s delisting

decision is deregulatory in nature and

does not impose any enforceable duty

on any State, local, or tribal

governments or the private sector. In

addition, the proposed delisting

decision does not establish any

regulatory requirements for small

governments and so does not require a

small government agency plan under

UMRA section 203.

XI. Executive Order 13045

The Executive Order 13045 is entitled

‘‘Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

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

This order applies to any rule that EPA

determines (1) is economically

significant as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) the environmental

health or safety risk addressed by the

rule has a disproportionate effect on

children. If the regulatory action meets

both criteria, the Agency must evaluate

the environmental health or safety

effects of the planned rule on children,

and explain why the planned regulation

is preferable to other potentially

effective and reasonably feasible

alternatives considered by the Agency.

This proposed rule is not subject to E.O.

13045 because this is not an

economically significant regulatory

action as defined by Executive Order

12866.

XII. Executive Order 13084

Because this action does not involve

any requirements that affect Indian

Tribes, the requirements of section 3(b)

of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects or uniquely affects that

communities of Indian tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments.

If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must

provide to the Office Management and

Budget, in a separately identified

section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA’s prior

consultation with representatives of

affected tribal governments, a summary

of the nature of their concerns, and a

statement supporting the need to issue

the regulation.

In addition, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to develop an effective

process permitting elected and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to meaningful and timely

input’’ in the development of regulatory

policies on matters that significantly or

uniquely affect their communities of

Indian tribal governments. This action

does not involve or impose any

requirements that affect Indian Tribes.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

XIII. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Under Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act, the Agency is directed to use

voluntary consensus standards in its

regulatory activities unless to do so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures,

business practices, etc.) developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standard bodies. Where available and

potentially applicable voluntary

consensus standards are not used by

EPA, the Act requires that Agency to

provide Congress, through the OMB, an

explanation of the reasons for not using

such standards.

This rule does not establish any new

technical standards and thus, the

Agency has no need to consider the use

of voluntary consensus standards in

developing this final rule.

XIV. Executive Order 13132 Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

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

1999) requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’

Under section 6 of Executive Order

13132, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications, that

impose substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the Federal government provides

the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and

local governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. The EPA also may not issue

a regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules 75649

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This action does not have federalism

implication. It will not have a

substantial direct effect on States, on the

relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132, because it

affects only one facility.

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: November 17, 2000.

Bill Luthans,

Deputy Director, Multimedia Planning and

Permitting Division, Region 6.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is proposed

to be amended as follows:

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

1. The authority citation for part 261

continues to read as follows:

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

6922, and 6938.

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

IX of part 261 it is proposed to 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.

TABLE 1.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description

*******

Eastman Chemical Company ................ Longview, Texas .... Wastewater treatment sludge, (at a maximum generation of 82,100 cubic yards

per calendar year) generated by Eastman (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F001,

F002, F003, F005 generated at Eastman.

Eastman must implement a testing program that meets the following conditions

for the exclusion to be valid:

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

exceed the following levels (mg/l). For the wastewater treatment sludge constituents must be measured in the waste leachate by the method specified in

40 CFR 261.24.

(A) Wastewater treatment sludge

(i) Inorganic Constituents: Antimony—0.0515; Barium—7.30; Cobalt—2.25;

Chromium—5.0; Lead—5.00; Mercury—0.0015; Nickel—2.83; Selenium—

0.22; Silver—0.384; Vanadium—2.11; Zinc—28.0

(ii) Organic Constituents: Acenaphthene—1.25; Acetone—7.13; bis(2-

ethylhexylphthalate—0.28; 2-butanone—42.8; Chloroform—0.0099; Fluorene—0.55; Methanol—35.7; Methylene Chloride—0.486; naphthalene—

0.0321.

(2) Waste Holding and Handling: Eastman may dispose of the waste water

treatment sludge if it meets the conditions of the Eastman delisting exclusion

found in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix IX Tables, 1, 2, and 3 (September 25,

1996). If the waste water treatment sludge is not managed in the manner

above, Eastman must manage it in accordance with applicable its RCRA

Subtitle C requirements. If the levels of constituents measured in the samples

of the waste water treatment sludge do not exceed the levels set forth in

Condition (1), then the waste is nonhazardous and may be managed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable solid waste regulations.

(3) Verification Testing Requirements: Eastman must perform sample collection

and analyses, including quality control procedures, according to SW–846

methodologies. After completion of the initial verification period, Eastman may

replace the testing required in Condition (3)(A) with the testing required in

Condition (3)(B). Eastman must continue to test as specified in Condition

(3)(A) until and unless notified by EPA in writing that testing in Condition

(3)(A) may be replaced by Condition (3)(B).

(A) Initial Verification Testing: (i) At quarterly intervals for one year after the final

exclusion is granted, Eastman must collect and analyze composites of the

wastewater treatment sludge for constituents listed in Condition (1).

(B) Subsequent Verification Testing: Following termination of the quarterly testing, Eastman must continue to test a representative composite sample for all

constituents listed in Condition (1) on an annual basis (no later than twelve

months after the final exclusion).

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If Eastman significantly changes the process which generate(s) the waste(s) and which may or could affect the composition or type waste(s) generated as established under Condition (1) (by illustration, but not limitation, change in equipment or operating conditions of

the treatment process). Eastman must notify the EPA in writing and may no

longer handle the waste generated from the new process or no longer manage as nonhazardous until the waste meet the delisting levels set in Condition (1) and it has received written approval to do so from EPA.

(5) Data Submittals: Eastman must submit or maintain, as applicable, the information described below. If Eastman fails to submit the required data within

the specified time or maintain the required records on-site for the specified

time, EPA, at its discretion, will consider this sufficient basis to reopen the exclusion as described in Condition (6). Eastman must:

75650 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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

Facility Address Waste description

(A) Submit the data obtained through Condition (3) to Mr. William Gallagher,

Chief, Region 6 Delisting Program, EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas

75202–2733, Mail Code, (6PD–O) within the time specified.

(B) Compile records of operating conditions and analytical data from Condition

(3), summarized, and maintained on-site for a minimum of five years.

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

them for inspection.

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

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

or fraudulent statements or representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Federal Code, which include, but may not be limited to, 18

U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify that the information contained in or

accompanying this document is true, accurate and complete.

‘‘As to the (those) identified section(s) of this document for which I cannot

personally verify its (their) truth and accuracy, I certify as the company official

having supervisory responsibility for the persons who, acting under my direct

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

complete.

‘‘If any of this information is determined by EPA in its sole discretion to be

false, inaccurate or incomplete, and upon conveyance of this fact to the company, I recognize and agree that this exclusion of waste will be void as if it

never had effect or to the extent directed by EPA and that the company will

be liable for any actions taken in contravention of the company’s RCRA and

CERCLA obligations premised upon the company’s reliance on the void exclusion.’’

(6) Reopener Language (A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste,

Eastman possesses or is otherwise made aware of any environmental data

(including but not limited to leachate data or groundwater monitoring data) or

any other data relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent

identified for the delisting verification testing is at level higher than the

delisting level allowed by the Regional Administrator or his delegate in granting the petition, then the facility must report the data, in writing, to the Regional Administrator or his delegate within 10 days of first possessing or

being made aware of that data.

(B) If the annual testing of the waste does not meet the delisting requirements

in Condition (1), Eastman must report the data, in writing, to the Regional Administrator or his delegate within 10 days of first possessing or being made

aware of that data.

(C) If Eastman fails to submit the information described in Conditions (5), (6)(A)

or (6)(B) or if any other information is received from any source, the Regional

Administrator or his delegate will make a preliminary determination as to

whether the reported information requires Agency action to protect human

health or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human

health and the environment.

(D) If the Regional Administrator or his delegate determines that the reported information does require Agency action, the Regional Administrator or his delegate will notify the facility in writing of the actions the Regional Administrator

or his delegate believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a

statement providing the facility with an opportunity to present information as

to why the proposed Agency action is not necessary. The facility shall have

10 days from the date of the Regional Administrator or his delegate’s notice

to present such information.

(E) Following the receipt of information from the facility described in Condition

(6)(D) or (if no information is presented under Condition (6)(D)) the initial receipt of information described in Conditions (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B), the Regional

Administrator or his delegate will issue a final written determination describing

the Agency actions that are necessary to protect human health or the environment. Any required action described in the Regional Administrator or his

delegate’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Regional Administrator or his delegate provides otherwise.

(7) Notification Requirements: Eastman must do following before transporting

the delisted waste off-site: Failure to provide this notification will result in a

violation of the delisting petition and a possible revocation of the exclusion.

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

which or through which they will transport the delisted waste described above

for disposal, 60 days before beginning such activities.

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

different disposal facility.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules 75651

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

Facility Address Waste description

*******

TABLE 2.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description

*******

Eastman Chemical Company ................ Longview,Texas ..... Wastewater treatment sludge, (at a maximum generation of 82,100 cubic yards

per calendar year) (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K009, K010) generated at

Eastman. Eastman must implement the testing program described in Table 1

of this Appendix. Waste 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 ................ Longview, Texas .... Wastewater treatment sludge, (at a maximum generation of 82,100 cubic yards

per calendar year) generated by Eastman (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.

U001, U002, U028, U031, U069, U088, U112, U115, U117, U122, U140,

U147, U154, U159, U161, U220, U226, U239, U359). Eastman must implement the testing program described in Table 1 of this Appendix. Waste Excluded From Non-Specific Sources for the petition to be valid.

*******

[FR Doc. 00–30632 Filed 12–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 268

[FRL–6910–9]

Land Disposal Restrictions: Notice of

Intent to Grant a Site-Specific

Treatment Variance to Dupont

Environmental Treatment—Chambers

Works Wastewater Treatment Plant,

Deepwater, New Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA or Agency) is proposing to

grant a site-specific treatment variance

from the Land Disposal Restrictions

(LDR) standards for wastewater

treatment sludge generated at the

Dupont Environmental Treatment

(DET)—Chambers Works Wastewater

Treatment Plant located in Deepwater,

New Jersey. This sludge is derived from

the treatment of multiple listed,

including K088, and characteristic

hazardous waste. DET requests this

treatment variance because they

contend that the chemical properties of

the sludge differ significantly from the

waste used to establish the LDR

treatment standard for arsenic in K088

nonwastewaters. Accordingly, we

propose to grant an alternate treatment

standard of 5.0 mg/L Toxicity

Characteristic Leaching Procedure

(TCLP) for the arsenic in the wastewater

treatment sludge generated at this

facility.

If promulgated, DET may then dispose

of their wastewater treatment sludge in

their on-site RCRA Subtitle C landfill

provided the sludge complies with the

specified alternate treatment standard

for arsenic in K088 nonwastewaters and

meets all other applicable LDR

treatment standards.

DATES: Comments must be received by

December 26, 2000. Comments received

after the close of the comment period

will be stamped ‘‘late’’ and may or may

not be considered by the Agency.

ADDRESSES: Commenters should submit

an original and two copies of their

comments referencing Docket Number

F–2000–DPVP–FFFFF to: (1) If using

regular U.S. Postal Service mail: RCRA

Docket Information Center, Office of

Solid Waste (5305G), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Headquarters (EPA–HQ), 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington

DC 20460–0002, or (2) if using special

delivery, such as overnight express

service: RCRA Docket Information

Center (RIC), Crystal Gateway One, 1235

Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor,

Arlington, VA 22202.

You may view public comments and

supporting materials in the RCRA

Information Center (RIC), located at

Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

The RIC is open from 9 am to 4 pm

Monday through Friday, excluding

federal holidays. To review docket

materials, we recommend that you make

an appointment by calling 703–603–

9230. You may copy up to 100 pages

from any regulatory document at no

charge. Additional copies cost $0.15 per

page. (The index is available

electronically. See the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section for information on

accessing them).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information, call the RCRA

Hotline at 1–800–424–9346 or TDD 1–

800–553–7672 (hearing impaired). The

RCRA Hotline is open Monday-Friday, 9

am to 6 pm, Eastern Standard Time. For

more detailed information on specific

aspects of this proposal, contact Elaine