Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25797

because the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial revision and

anticipates no adverse comments. The

rationale for the approval is set forth in

the direct final rule. If no relevant

adverse comments are received in

response to this proposed rule, no

further activity is contemplated in

relation to this proposed rule. If the EPA

receives relevant adverse comments, the

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in

the Federal Register. All relevant public

comments received during the 30-day

comment period set forth below will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by June 10,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Thomas

H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section, at

the EPA Region 6 Office listed below.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

proposed rule are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations.

Anyone wanting to examine these

documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least two working days in advance.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD–L),

Multimedia Planning and Permitting

Division, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.

Air Quality Division, Louisiana

Department of Environmental Quality,

7290 Bluebonnet Boulevard, Baton

Rouge, Louisiana 70810.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Eaton R. Weiler, of the EPA Region 6 Air

Planning Section at the above address,

telephone (214) 665–2174.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the direct final

rule which is published in the Rules

and Regulations section of this Federal

Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: April 23, 1998.

Lynda F. Carroll,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

[FR Doc. 98–12431 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW–FRL–6012–3]

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 grant

a petition submitted by Occidental

Chemical Corporation (Occidental

Chemical), to exclude (or delist) certain

solid wastes generated at its Ingleside,

Texas, facility from the lists of

hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR

261.24, 261.31, and 261.32, (hereinafter

all sectional references are to 40 CFR

unless otherwise indicated). This

petition was submitted under § 260.20,

which allows any person to petition the

Administrator to modify or revoke any

provision of parts 260 through 266, 268

and 273, and under § 260.22, which

specifically provides generators the

opportunity to petition the

Administrator to exclude a waste on a

‘‘generator specific’’ basis from the

hazardous waste lists. This proposed

decision is based on an evaluation of

waste-specific information provided by

the petitioner. If this proposed decision

is finalized, the petitioned waste will be

excluded from the requirements of

hazardous waste regulations under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). The EPA is also proposing

the use of a fate and transport model to

evaluate the potential impact of the

petitioned waste on human health and

the environment, based on the wastespecific information provided by the

petitioner. This model has been used in

evaluating the petition to predict the

concentration of hazardous constituents

that may be released from the petitioned

waste, once it is disposed. The EPA is

requesting public comments on this

proposed decision and on the

applicability of the fate and transport

model used to evaluate the petition.

DATES: Comments will be accepted until

June 25, 1998. Comments postmarked

after the close of the comment period

will be stamped ‘‘late.’’

Any person may request a hearing on

this proposed decision by filing a

request with Acting Director, Robert E.

Hannesschlager, Multimedia Planning

and Permitting Division, whose address

appears below, by May 26, 1998. The

request must contain the information

prescribed in § 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Send three copies of your

comments. Two copies should be sent to

the William Gallagher, Delisting

Section, Multimedia Planning and

Permitting Division (6PD–O),

Environmental Protection Agency EPA,

1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202.

A third copy should be sent 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–97–TXDEL–

OCCIDENTAL.’’

Requests for a hearing should be

addressed to the Acting Director, Robert

E. Hannesschlager, Multimedia

Planning and Permitting Division (6PD),

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202.

The RCRA regulatory docket for this

proposed rule is located at the

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

Texas 75202 and is available for viewing

in the EPA Library on the 12th Floor

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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical information concerning this

notice, contact Jon Rinehart, Multimedia

Planning and Permitting Division,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX

75202, (214) 665–6789.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Authority

On January 16, 1981, as part of its

final and interim final regulations

implementing section 3001 of RCRA,

EPA published an amended list of

hazardous wastes from non-specific and

specific sources. This list has been

amended several times, and is

published in 261.31 and 261.32. These

wastes are listed as hazardous because

they typically and frequently exhibit

one or more of the characteristics of

hazardous wastes identified in subpart

C of part 261 (i.e., ignitability,

corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or

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 that is described in

these regulations generally is hazardous,

a specific waste from an individual

facility meeting the listing description
25798 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

1The other portion of waste proposed to be

excluded is not disposed but is instead treated

onsite prior to discharge. Discharge of the waste is

regulated under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.

may not be. For this reason, §§ 260.20

and 260.22 provide an exclusion

procedure, allowing persons to

demonstrate that a specific waste from

a particular generating facility should

not be regulated as a hazardous waste.

To have their wastes excluded,

petitioners must show that wastes

generated at their facilities do not meet

any of the criteria for which the wastes

were listed. See § 260.22(a) and the

background documents for the listed

wastes. In addition, the Hazardous and

Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of

1984 require the EPA to consider any

factors (including additional

constituents) other than those for which

the waste was listed, if there is a

reasonable basis to believe that such

additional factors could cause the waste

to be hazardous. Accordingly, a

petitioner also must demonstrate that

the waste does not exhibit any of the

hazardous waste characteristics (i.e.,

ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and

toxicity), and must present sufficient

information for the EPA to determine

whether the waste contains any other

toxicants at hazardous levels. See

§ 260.22(a), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and the

background documents for the listed

wastes. Although wastes which are

‘‘delisted’’ (i.e., excluded) have been

evaluated to determine whether or not

they exhibit any of the characteristics of

hazardous waste, generators remain

obligated under RCRA to determine

whether or not their waste remains

nonhazardous based on the hazardous

waste characteristics.

In addition, mixtures containing

listed hazardous wastes are also

considered hazardous wastes as are

wastes derived from the treatment,

storage, or disposal of listed hazardous

waste. See § 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i),

referred to as the ‘‘mixture’’ and

‘‘derived-from’’ rules, respectively. Such

wastes are also eligible for exclusion

and remain hazardous wastes until

excluded. 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 the

EPA on procedural grounds. Shell Oil

Co. v. EPA., 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir.

1991). On March 3, 1992, EPA

reinstated the mixture and derived-from

rules, and solicited comments on other

ways to regulate waste mixtures and

residues (57 FR 7628). These rules

became final on October 30, 1992 (57 FR

49278). These references should be

consulted for more information

regarding mixtures and residues.

B. Approach Used to Evaluate This

Petition

Occidental Chemical’s petition

requests a delisting for listed hazardous

wastes. In making the initial delisting

determination, the EPA evaluated the

petitioned wastes against the listing

criteria and factors cited in

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

review, the EPA agreed 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

wastes remained hazardous based on

the factors for which the wastes were

originally listed, EPA would have

proposed to deny the petition.) The EPA

then evaluated the wastes with respect

to other factors or criteria to assess

whether there is a reasonable basis to

believe that such additional factors

could cause the wastes to be hazardous.

The EPA considered whether the wastes

are acutely toxic, and considered the

toxicity of the constituents, the

concentration of the constituents in the

wastes, their tendency to migrate and to

bioaccumulate, their persistence in the

environment once released from the

wastes, plausible and specific types of

management of the petitioned wastes,

the quantities of wastes generated, and

waste variability.

For this delisting determination, the

EPA used such information gathered to

identify plausible exposure routes (i.e.,

ground water, surface water, air) for

hazardous constituents present in the

petitioned wastes. The EPA determined

that disposal in a Subtitle D landfill/

surface impoundment is the most

reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario

for Occidental Chemical’s petitioned

wastes, and that the major exposure

route of concern would be ingestion of

contaminated ground water. Therefore,

the EPA is proposing to use a particular

fate and transport model, the EPA

Composite Model for Landfills

(EPACML), to predict the maximum

allowable concentrations of hazardous

constituents that may be released from

the petitioned wastes after disposal and

to determine the potential impact of the

disposal of Occidental Chemical’s

petitioned wastes on human health and

the environment. Specifically, the EPA

used the maximum estimated waste

volumes and the maximum reported

extract 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) were

then compared directly to the healthbased levels at an assumed risk of 10¥6

used in delisting decision-making for

the hazardous constituents of concern.

The EPA believes that this fate and

transport model represents a reasonable

worst-case scenario for disposal of the

petitioned wastes in a landfill/surface

impoundment, 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 a reasonable worst-case scenario

results in conservative values for the

compliance-point concentrations and

ensures that the waste, once removed

from hazardous waste regulation, may

not pose a threat to human health or the

environment. In most cases, because a

delisted waste is no longer subject to

hazardous waste control, the EPA is

generally unable to predict, and does

not presently control, how a waste will

be managed after delisting. Therefore,

EPA currently believes that it is

inappropriate to consider extensive sitespecific 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, the EPA

determined that it would be

unnecessary to request ground water

monitoring data. Specifically,

Occidental Chemical currently disposes

of a part of the petitioned wastes

(Rockbox Residue and Limestone

Sludge) generated at its facility in an offsite, RCRA hazardous waste landfill

(which is not owned/operated by

Occidental Chemical).1 This landfill did

not begin accepting this petitioned

waste generated by the Occidental

Chemical facility until 1991. This

petitioned waste comprises a small

fraction of the total waste managed in

the unit. Therefore, the EPA, believes

that any ground water monitoring data

from the landfill would not be

meaningful for an evaluation of the

specific effect of this petitioned waste

on ground water. Finally, there are

presently no data from groundwater

monitoring wells available, therefore

there is no data to evaluate.

From the evaluation of Occidental

Chemical’s delisting petition, a list of

constituents was developed for the

verification testing conditions. Proposed

maximum allowable leachable

concentrations for these constituents

were derived by back-calculating from
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25799

the delisting health-based 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.

Similar to other facilities seeking

exclusions, Occidental Chemical’s

exclusion (if granted) would be

contingent upon the facility conducting

analytical testing of representative

samples of the petitioned wastes at

Ingleside. This testing would be

necessary to verify that the treatment

system is operating as demonstrated in

the petition submitted on January 3,

1997. Specifically, the verification

testing requirements, would be

implemented to demonstrate that the

processing facility will generate

nonhazardous wastes (i.e., wastes that

meet the EPA’s verification testing

conditions). The EPA’s proposed

decision to delist wastes from

Occidental Chemical’s facility is based

on the information submitted in support

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

wastewater treatment system and

analytical data from the Ingleside

facility.

Finally, the HSWA specifically

require the EPA to provide notice and

an opportunity for comment before

granting or denying a final exclusion.

Thus, a final decision will not be made

until all timely public comments

(including those at public hearings, if

any) on today’s proposal are addressed.

II. Disposition of Delisting Petition

Occidental Chemical Corporation,

Ingleside, Texas 78362.

A. Petition for Exclusion

Occidental Chemical Corporation,

located in Ingleside, Texas, petitioned

the EPA for an exclusion for 128 cubic

yards of Rockbox Residue, 148,284

cubic yards of Caustic Neutralized

Wastewater, and 1,114 cubic yards

Limestone Sludge per calendar year

resulting from its hazardous waste

treatment process. The resulting wastes

are presently listed, in accordance with

§ 261.3(c)(2)(i) (i.e., the ‘‘derived from’’

rule), as EPA Hazardous Waste No.

K019, K020, F001, F003, F005, and

F025. The listed constituents of concern

for these waste codes are listed in Table

1.

TABLE 1.—HAZARDOUS WASTE CODES ASSOCIATED WITH WASTEWATER STREAMS

Waste code Basis for characteristics/listing

K019/K020 ................. Ethylene dichloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, vinyl chloride, vinylidene chloride.

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

F003 ........................... N.A Waste is hazardous because it fails the test for the characteristic of ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity.

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

F025 ........................... Chloromethane, dichloromethane, trichloromethane, carbon tetrachloride, chloroethylene,1,1-dichloroethane,1,2-

dichloroethane, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,1-dichlorothylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,1,1,2-trichloroethane,

trichlorothylene, 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane,1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, pentachloroethane, hexachloroethane, 3-chloropropene, dichloropropane, dichloropropene, 2-chloro-1,3-butadiene, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene,

hexachlorocyclopentadiene, benzene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, tetrachlorobenzene,

pentachlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene, toluene, naphthalene.

Occidental Chemical petitioned to

exclude the Rockbox Residue, Caustic

Neutralized Wastewater, and Limestone

Sludge treatment residues because it

does not believe that the petitioned

wastes meet the criteria for which they

were listed. Occidental Chemical further

believes that the wastes are not

hazardous for any other reason (i.e.,

there are no additional constituents or

factors that could cause the wastes to be

hazardous). Review of this petition

included consideration of the original

listing criteria, as well as the additional

factors required by the HSWA. See

section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C.

§ 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)–(4).

Today’s proposal to grant this petition

for delisting is the result of the EPA’s

evaluation of Occidental Chemical’s

petition.

B. Background

On January 3, 1997, Occidental

Chemical petitioned the EPA to exclude

from the lists of hazardous waste

contained in §§ 261.31 and 261.32, an

annual volume of Rockbox Residue,

Caustic Neutralized Wastewater, and

Limestone Sludge which are generated

as a result of the treatment of offgases

from onsite incinerators. Specifically, in

its petition, Occidental Chemical

requested that the EPA grant an

exclusion for 128 cubic yards of

Rockbox Residue, 148,284 cubic yards

of Caustic Neutralized Wastewater, and

1,114 cubic yards of Limestone Sludge

generated per calendar year.

In support of its petition, Occidental

Chemical submitted: (1) Descriptions of

its wastewater treatment processes and

the incineration activities associated

with petitioned wastes; (2) results of the

total constituent list for 40 CFR part 264

Appendix IX volatiles, semivolatiles,

and metals except for 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 total basis for dioxin and furan; and

(8) results of dioxin and furan TCLP

extract.

Occidental Chemical is an active

plant that produces ethylene dichloride

(EDC), vinyl chloride monomer (VCM),

chlorine, and caustic soda. The plant

utilizes chlorine, ethylene, and oxygen

as feedstock and utilizes two permitted,

onsite RCRA incinerators to burn

process vent gases, intermediate wastes

generated during the production of EDC

and VCM (K019, K020, and F025), waste

paint thinner (F001, F003, F005), and

occasionally waste oil. These two

incinerators have been in continuous

operation since 1991. Occidental

Chemical has previously classified three

waste streams (Rockbox Residue,

Caustic Neutralized Wastewater and

Limestone Sludge) generated from the

treatment of the offgas from the

incinerators as hazardous based on the

‘‘derived from’’ rule in § 261.3(c)(2)(i).

The combustion products from the

incinerators contain hydrochloric acid

(HCl). Incinerator offgases are treated in

the Incinerator Offgas Treatment

System. In this system, the emissions

are passed through absorption columns,

dehumidifier columns, and caustic

scrubbers to remove the HCl. Blowdown
25800 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

water from the dehumidifier columns

and caustic scrubber columns are routed

to the Rockbox Tank (the Rockbox) as

the first step in neutralizing the HCl.

Excess HCl from the aqueous HCl

storage tanks is commingled with the

blowdown water and routed to the

Rockbox. The influent to Rockbox

normally contains 3 to 7 percent HCl. At

times when excess HCl is not produced,

the influent to the Rockbox is

predominantly blowdown from the

dehumidifier and caustic scrubber

columns.

The Rockbox contains crushed

limestone with small amounts of inert

materials (silica oxide). These inert

materials accumulate in the bottom of

the Rockbox as the crushed limestone is

utilized in the neutralization process.

The accumulation of inert materials is

the Rockbox Residue. The Rockbox

Residue is a ‘‘third generation’’ waste

since it is the residue of treating

wastewater used to quench gaseous

emissions from the incineration of listed

wastes.

The pH of the effluent leaving the

Rockbox is between 1 and 5. The

effluent is passed through a primary pH

adjustment tank where air is released

into the water to remove carbon dioxide.

Additionally, sodium hydroxide may be

added to this tank. Mixing with air

minimizes the formation of calcium

carbonate precipitate upon introduction

of caustic soda. The effluent is then

passed through the secondary pH

adjustment tank where caustic soda

(sodium hydroxide) is added to raise the

pH of the water to a pH between 7 and

9. The stream, consisting of water and

calcium carbonate precipitant in

suspension, flows through a clarifier

where the sludge is settled out. The

aqueous effluent from the clarifier tank

is the Caustic Neutralized Wastewater

which Occidental Chemical seeks to

delist. This waste stream consists of an

aqueous phase that no longer exhibits

the hazardous waste characteristic of

corrosivity.

The settled solids (calcium carbonate)

from the clarifier are dewatered on a

belt filter press and are dropped directly

into rolloff bins for disposal. Water

removed during the operation of the

filter press is returned to the clarifier.

The remaining filter cake is the

Limestone Sludge, which Occidental

Chemical also seeks to delist.

Rockbox Residue is generated on a

batch basis every one to two years. For

the past two years (1995 and 1996), the

Rockbox Residue was generated

annually. This is probable due to a

higher than average concentration of

inerts in the limestone purchased for the

Rockbox. The Rockbox Residue is

disposed of in an offsite permitted

hazardous waste landfill.

Caustic Neutralized Wastewater and

Limestone Sludge are generated on a

continuous basis. The Caustic

Neutralized Wastewater is treated in an

onsite unit which has in an National

Pollution Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permitted outfall. The

Limestone Sludge is transported to an

offsite hazardous waste landfill for

disposal.

Occidental Chemical developed a list

of constituents of concern from

comparing a list of all raw materials

used in the plant that could potentially

appear in the petitioned waste with

those found in 40 CFR part § 264, as

well as dioxins and furans. Based on the

knowledge of process they determined

that herbicides, pesticides and PCBs

would be excluded from the Appendix

IX analyte list. The EPA has included

the dioxins and furans on the list, due

the incineration of chlorinated

compounds. Using the list of

constituents of concern, Occidental

analyzed the four composite samples for

the total concentrations (i.e., mass of a

particular constituent per mass of waste)

of the volatiles and semivolatiles, and

metals from Appendix IX. These four

samples were also analyzed to

determine whether the waste exhibited

ignitable, corrosive, or reactive

properties as defined under 40 CFR

261.21, 261.22, and 261.23, including

analysis for total constituent

concentrations of cyanide, sulfide,

reactive cyanide, and reactive sulfide.

These four samples were also analyzed

for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching

Procedure (TCLP) concentrations (i.e.,

mass of a particular constituent per unit

volume of extract) of all the volatiles,

semivolatiles, and metals on the

Appendix IX list. This list was

developed based on the availability of

test methods and process knowledge.

Two sampling events were conducted,

one in 1995 and one in 1996.

C. EPA Analysis

Occidental Chemical used SW–846

Methods 8260A, 8270B, 6010, 8290 to

quantify the total constituent

concentrations of 40 CFR part 264,

Appendix IX Volatiles (including 2-

ethoxyethanol, chloroethylene,

vinyldene chloride and

trichloromethane), Appendix IX

Semivolatiles (excluding PCBs,

Pesticides, Herbicides) Appendix IX

Metals, and Appendix IX Dioxins/

Furans. Occidental Chemical used SW–

846 Methods 9045, 9030, 9010, 1311 to

quantify pH, Reactive Sulfide, and

Reactive Cyanide. Occidental Chemical

used SW–846 Methods 8260A, 8270B,

6010, 8290 to quantify the constituents

from the TCLP extract. These analyses

were performed on all three of the

petitioned wastes: the Rockbox Residue,

Limestone Sludge, and the Caustic

Neutralized Wastewater. The Rockbox

Residue, the Limestone Sludge, and the

Caustic Neutralized Wastewater do not

meet the definitions for reactivity and

corrosivity as defined by §§ 261.22 and

261.23. Table 2 presents the maximum

total constituent and leachate

concentrations for the Rockbox Residue.

TABLE 2.—MAXIMUM TOTAL CONSTITUENT AND LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS ROCKBOX RESIDUE 2

Constituents

Total constituent analyses

(mg/kg)

Leachate analyses

(mg/l)

Acetone .......................................................................................................................................................... <0.02 <0.1

Bromodichloromethane .................................................................................................................................. 0.007 <0.02

Bromoform ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.022 0.02

Bromomethane ............................................................................................................................................... <0.01 <0.05

Chlorodibromomethane .................................................................................................................................. 0.027 <0.02

Chloroform ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.008 <0.02

Dichloromethane ............................................................................................................................................ <0.005 0.11

Ethylbenzene .................................................................................................................................................. <0.005 0.04

2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalent ............................................................................................................................... 0.000321 0.00000000531

Barium ............................................................................................................................................................ 1.5 0.666

Chromium ....................................................................................................................................................... <1.0 0.13

Copper ............................................................................................................................................................ 1.1 <0.25

Lead ............................................................................................................................................................... <1.0 <0.07
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25801

TABLE 2.—MAXIMUM TOTAL CONSTITUENT AND LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS ROCKBOX RESIDUE 2—Continued

Constituents

Total constituent analyses

(mg/kg)

Leachate analyses

(mg/l)

Selenium ........................................................................................................................................................ <1.0 0.11

Tin .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 <0.10

Vanadium ....................................................................................................................................................... 1.3 <0.50

Zinc ................................................................................................................................................................. 23 <0.4

Reactive Sulfide ............................................................................................................................................. <50

Reactive Cyanide ........................................................................................................................................... <10

pH ................................................................................................................................................................... 3.19

< Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the detection limit specified in the table. 2These 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.

Tables 3 and 4 present the maximum total constituent and leachate concentrations for the Limestone Sludge. Table

5 presents the maximum total constituent and leachate concentrations for the Caustic Neutralized Wastewater.

TABLE 3.—MAXIMUM TOTAL ORGANIC CONSTITUENT AND LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS LIMESTONE SLUDGE 3

Constituent

Total constituent analyses

(mg/kg)

Leachate analyses

(mg/l)

Acetone .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.034 0.27

Bromoform ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.031 <0.02

Chlorodibromomethane .................................................................................................................................. 0.012 <0.02

Dichloromethane ............................................................................................................................................ <0.005 0.54

Ethylbenzene .................................................................................................................................................. <0.005 0.03

1,1,1-Trichloroethane ..................................................................................................................................... 0.011 <0.1

Toluene .......................................................................................................................................................... <0.005 1.8

Trichlorofluoromethane .................................................................................................................................. 0.011 <0.02

Xylene ............................................................................................................................................................ <0.020 0.11

Diethylphthalate .............................................................................................................................................. <0.00001 <0.04

2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalent ............................................................................................................................... 0.00135 0.00000000018

Reactive Sulfide ............................................................................................................................................. <50 ................................

Reactive Cyanide ........................................................................................................................................... <10 ................................

pH ................................................................................................................................................................... 9.55 ................................

< Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the detection limit specified in the table. 3These 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 4.—MAXIMUM TOTAL INORGANIC CONSTITUENT AND LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS LIMESTONE SLUDGE 4

Constituent Total constituent

analyses (mg/kg)

Leachate analyses

(mg/l)

Antimony ............................................................................................................................................................ 2.6 <0.6

Arsenic ............................................................................................................................................................... 18.4 <0.1

Barium ................................................................................................................................................................ 15.2 0.14

Beryllium ............................................................................................................................................................. 0.5 <0.1

Chromium ........................................................................................................................................................... 25.2 <0.1

Cobalt ................................................................................................................................................................. 2.4 <0.1

Copper ................................................................................................................................................................ 41.2 <0.1

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................... 13 <0.1

Nickel .................................................................................................................................................................. 64.4 0.47

Selenium ............................................................................................................................................................ <0.001 0.1

Silver .................................................................................................................................................................. 1.1 <0.1

Vanadium ........................................................................................................................................................... 138 <0.1

Zinc ..................................................................................................................................................................... 58 0.11

< Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the detection limit specified in the table. 4These 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 5.—MAXIMUM TOTAL CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZED WASTEWATER 5

Constituent Total constituent

analyses

Acetone ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.01

Bromoform ................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.054

Chlorodibromomethane ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.015
25802 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 5.—MAXIMUM TOTAL CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZED WASTEWATER 5—Continued

Constituent Total constituent

analyses

2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalent ............................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000000006

Arsenic ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.01

Barium .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.18

Lead ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.1

Silver ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.08

Vanadium ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.007

Zinc .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.49

Reactive Sulfide ........................................................................................................................................................................... <50

Reactive Cyanide ......................................................................................................................................................................... <10

pH ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11.8

<Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the detection limit specified in the table.

5These 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.

Occidental Chemical used SW–846

Methods 8260A and 8270B to quantify

the total constituent concentrations of

54 volatile and 117 semivolatile organic

compounds, respectively in the Rockbox

Residue, the Limestone Sludge, and the

Caustic Neutralized Wastewater. This

suite of constituents included all of the

nonpesticide organic constituents listed

in § 261.24. Also, Occidental Chemical

used SW–846 Methods 8260A and

8270B to quantify the leachable

concentrations of 54 volatile and 117

semivolatile organic compounds,

respectively, in the Rockbox Residue,

Limestone Sludge, and the Caustic

Neutralized Wastewater, following

extraction by SW–846 Method 1311

(TCLP). This suite of constituents

included all of the organic constituents

listed in § 261.24 (except the pesticides).

In addition, the Rockbox Residue, the

Limestone Sludge, and the Caustic

Neutralized Wastewater were analyzed

for TCLP metals.

Occidental Chemical submitted a

signed certification stating that, based

on projected annual waste generation,

the maximum annual generation rate

will be 128 cubic yards of Rockbox

Residue, 148,284 cubic yards of Caustic

Neutralized Wastewater, and 1,114

cubic yards of Limestone Sludge. The

EPA reviews a petitioner’s estimates

and, on occasion, has requested a

petitioner to reevaluate the estimated

waste volume. The EPA accepted

Occidental Chemical’s certified

estimates. The EPA does not generally

verify submitted test data before

proposing delisting decisions. The

sworn affidavit submitted with this

petition binds the petitioner to present

truthful and accurate results. The EPA,

however, has maintained a spot-check

sampling and analysis program to verify

the representative nature of the data for

some percentage of the submitted

petitions. A spot-check visit to a

selected facility may be initiated before

finalizing a delisting petition or after

granting an exclusion.

D. EPA Evaluation

The EPA considered the

appropriateness of alternative waste

management scenarios for Occidental

Chemical’s Rockbox Residue, Caustic

Neutralized Wastewater, and Limestone

Sludge. The EPA decided, based on the

information provided in the petition,

that disposal of the Rockbox Residue

and Limestone Sludge in a municipal

solid waste landfill is the most

reasonable, worst-case scenario for the

Rockbox Residue and the Limestone

Sludge. The disposal of the Caustic

Neutralized Wastewater in a surface

impoundment would be the most

reasonable worst case scenario. Under a

landfill/surface impoundment disposal

scenario, the major exposure route of

concern for any hazardous constituents

would be ingestion of contaminated

ground water. The EPA, therefore,

evaluated Occidental Chemical’s

petitioned wastes using the modified

EPA Composite Model for Landfills/

Surface Impoundments (EPACML)

which predicts the potential for ground

water contamination from wastes that

are landfilled/placed in a surface

impoundment. See 56 FR 32993 (July

18, 1991), 56 FR 67197 (December 30,

1991) and the RCRA public docket for

these notices for a detailed description

of the EPACML model, the disposal

assumptions, and the modifications

made for delisting. This model, which

includes both unsaturated and saturated

zone transport modules, was used to

predict reasonable worse-case

contaminant levels in ground water at a

compliance point ( i.e., a receptor well

serving as a drinking-water supply).

Specifically, the model estimated the

dilution/attenuation factor (DAF)

resulting from subsurface processes

such as three-dimensional dispersion

and dilution from ground water

recharge for a specific volume of waste.

The EPA requests comments on the use

of the EPACML as applied to the

evaluation of Occidental Chemical’s

petitioned wastes (Rockbox Residue,

Caustic Neutralized Wastewater, and

Limestone Sludge).

For the evaluation of Occidental

Chemical’s petitioned wastes, the EPA

used the EPACML to evaluate the

mobility of the hazardous constituents

detected in the extract of samples of

Occidental Chemical’s Rockbox Residue

and the Limestone Sludge. The total

analysis was utilized for the Caustic

Neutralized Wastewater. Typically, the

EPA uses the maximum annual waste

volume to derive a petition-specific

DAF. The DAFs are currently calculated

assuming an ongoing process generates

wastes for 20 years.

The DAF for the waste volume of

Rockbox Residue is 128 cubic yards/

year assuming 20 years of generation is

100. The DAF for the waste volume of

Caustic Neutralized Wastewater is

148,284 cubic yards/year assuming 20

years of generation is 7. The DAF for the

waste volume of Limestone Sludge is

1,114 cubic yards/year assuming 20

years of generation is 100.

The EPA’s evaluation of the Rockbox

Residue using a DAF of 100, a

maximum waste volume estimate of 128

cubic yards, and the maximum reported

TCLP concentrations (see Table 2),

yielded compliance point

concentrations (see Table 5) that are

below the current health based levels.

The EPA’s evaluation of the

Limestone Sludge using a DAF of 100,

for the Limestone Sludge a maximum

waste volume estimate of 1,114 cubic

yards, and the maximum reported TCLP

concentrations (see Tables 3 and 4),

yielded compliance point

concentrations (See Table 7) that are

below the current health based levels.

The EPA’s evaluation of the Caustic

Neutralized Wastewater using a DAF of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25803

7, a maximum waste volume estimate of

148,284, cubic yards, and the maximum

reported TCLP concentrations (see Table

5), yielded compliance point

concentrations (See Table 8) that are

below the current health based levels.

TABLE 6.—EPACML: CALCULATED COMPLIANCE-POINT CONCENTRATIONS ROCKBOX RESIDUE

Constituents

Compliance point

concentrations

(mg/l) 6

Levels of concern

(mg/l) 7

Acetone .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00106 4.0

Bromdichloromethane .............................................................................................................................. 0.0002 0.0014

Bromoform ................................................................................................................................................ 0.0002 0.01

Bromomethane ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0005 0.05

Chlorodibromomethane ............................................................................................................................ 0.0002 0.001

Chloroform ................................................................................................................................................ 0.0002 0.01

Dichloromethane ...................................................................................................................................... 0.0011 0.01

Ethylbenzene ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0004 0.7

2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalent ......................................................................................................................... 0.0000000000531 0.0000000006

Barium ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.0066 2.0

Chromium ................................................................................................................................................. 0.0013 0.1

Copper ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.0025 1.3

Lead ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.0005 0.015

Selenium .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0011 0.05

Tin ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.0010 2.1

Vanadium ................................................................................................................................................. 0.005 0.3

Zinc ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.004 10.0

6 Using the maximum TCLP leachate concentration, based on a DAF of 100 for a maximum annual volume of 128 cubic yards.

7See ‘‘Docket Report on Health-Based Levels and Solubilities Used in the Evaluation of Delisting Petitions,’’ May 1996 located in the RCRA

Public Docket for today’s notice.

TABLE 7.—EPACML: CALCULATED COMPLIANCE-POINT CONCENTRATION LIMESTONE SLUDGE

Constituents

Compliance point

concentrations

(mg/l) 8

Levels of concern

(mg/l) 9

Acetone .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0027 4.0

Bromoform ................................................................................................................................................ 0.0002 0.01

Chlorodibromomethane ............................................................................................................................ 0.0002 0.001

Dichloromethane ...................................................................................................................................... 0.0054 0.01

Ethylbenzene ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0003 0.7

1,1,1-Trichloroethane ............................................................................................................................... 0.0002 0.2

Toluene .................................................................................................................................................... 0.02 7.0

Trichlorofluoromethane ............................................................................................................................ 0.0002 10.0

Xylene ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.0011 20.0

Diethyl phthalate ...................................................................................................................................... 0.0001 30.0

2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalent ......................................................................................................................... 0.00000000000183 0.0000000006

Antimony .................................................................................................................................................. 0.06 0.006

Arsenic ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.0005 0.05

Barium ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.0014 2.0

Beryllium ................................................................................................................................................... 0.0005 0.004

Chromium ................................................................................................................................................. 0.0005 0.1

Cobalt ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.005 2.1

Copper ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.0025 1.3

Lead ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.0005 0.015

Nickel ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.0047 0.7

Selenium .................................................................................................................................................. 0.001 0.05

Silver ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.00025 0.02

Vanadium ................................................................................................................................................. 0.005 0.3

Zinc ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.0011 10.0

8 Using the maximum TCLP leachate concentration, based on a DAF of 100 for a maximum annual of 1,114 cubic yards.

9See Table 6.

TABLE 8.—EPACML: CALCULATED COMPLIANCE-POINT CONCENTRATIONS CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZED WASTEWATER

Constituents

Compliance point

concentrations

(mg/l) 10

Levels of concern

(mg/l) 11

Acetone .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00143 4.0

Bromoform ................................................................................................................................................ 0.01 0.01

Chlorodibromomethane ............................................................................................................................ 0.001 0.001

2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalent ......................................................................................................................... 0.00000000012 0.0000000006

Arsenic ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00143 0.05

Barium ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.03 2.0
25804 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 8.—EPACML: CALCULATED COMPLIANCE-POINT CONCENTRATIONS CAUSTIC NEUTRALIZED WASTEWATER—

Continued

Constituents

Compliance point

concentrations

(mg/l) 10

Levels of concern

(mg/l) 11

Lead ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.01 0.015

Silver ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.01 0.02

Vanadium ................................................................................................................................................. 0.001 0.3

Zinc ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.07 10.0

10 Using the maximum total concentration, based on a DAF of 7 for a maximum annual volume of 148,248 cubic yards. 11See Table 6.

The maximum reported or calculated

leachate concentrations of bromoform,

chlorodibromomethane,

dichloromethane, ethylbenzene, 2,3,7,8-

TCDD Equivalent, barium, chromium,

and selenium in the Rockbox Residue

yielded compliance point

concentrations well below the health

based levels used in the delisting

decision-making. The EPA did not

evaluate the mobility of the remaining

constituents (e.g., acetone,

bromodichloromethane, copper, lead)

from Occidental Chemical’s waste

because they were not detected in the

leachate using the appropriate analytical

test methods (see Table 2). The EPA

does not evaluate nondetectable

concentrations of a constituent of

concern in its modeling efforts if the

nondetectable value was obtained using

the appropriate analytical method; the

EPA then assumes that the constituent

is not present and therefore does not

present a threat to human health or the

environment.

The maximum reported or calculated

leachate concentrations of acetone,

bromoform, chlorodibromomethane,

2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalent, arsenic,

barium, lead, silver, vanadium, and zinc

in the Caustic Neutralized Wastewater

yielded compliance point

concentrations well below the health

based levels used in the delisting

decision-making.

The maximum reported or calculated

leachate concentrations of acetone,

dichloromethane, ethylbenzene,

toluene, xylene, 2,3,7,8-TCDD

Equivalent, barium, nickel, selenium,

and zinc in the Limestone Sludge

yielded compliance point

concentrations well below the health

based levels used in the delisting

decision-making. The EPA did not

evaluate the mobility of the remaining

constituents ( e.g., bromoform,

beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper,

lead) from Occidental Chemical’s waste

because they were not detected in the

leachate using the appropriate analytical

test methods (see Table 3). As explained

above, the EPA does not evaluate

nondetectable concentrations of a

constituent of concern in its modeling

efforts if the non-detectable value was

obtained using the appropriate

analytical method.

The EPA concluded, after reviewing

Occidental Chemical’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

Occidental Chemical’s wastes. In

addition, on the basis of explanations

and analytical data provided by

Occidental Chemical, pursuant to

§ 260.22, the EPA concludes that the

petitioned wastes do not exhibit any of

the characteristics of ignitability,

corrosivity, or reactivity. See §§ 261.21,

261.22, and 261.23, respectively.

During the evaluation of Occidental

Chemical’s petition, the EPA also

considered the potential impact of the

petitioned wastes via non-ground water

routes ( i.e., air emission and surface

runoff). With regard to airborne

dispersion in particular, the EPA

believes that exposure to airborne

contaminants from Occidental

Chemical’s petitioned wastes is

unlikely. Therefore, no appreciable air

releases are likely from Occidental’s

wastes under any likely disposal

conditions. The EPA evaluated the

potential hazards resulting from the

unlikely scenario of airborne exposure

to hazardous constituents released from

Occidental Chemical’s wastes in an

open landfill. The results of this worstcase analysis indicated that there is no

substantial present or potential hazard

to human health and the environment

from airborne exposure to constituents

from Occidental Chemical’s Rockbox

Residue, Caustic Neutralized

Wastewater, or the Limestone Sludge. A

description of the EPA’s assessment of

the potential impact of Occidental

Chemical’s wastes, regarding airborne

dispersion of waste contaminants, is

presented in the RCRA public docket for

today’s proposed rule.

The EPA also considered the potential

impact of the petitioned wastes 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

run-off 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 wastes 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, the EPA evaluated the

potential impacts on surface water if

Occidental Chemical’s waste were

released from a municipal solid waste

landfill through runoff and erosion. See,

the RCRA public docket for today’s

proposed rule. 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 the EPA chronic Water

Quality Criteria for aquatic organisms

(USEPA, OWRS, 1987). The EPA,

therefore, concluded that Occidental

Chemical’s Rockbox Residue, the

Caustic Neutralized Wastewater, and the

Limestone Sludge wastes are not a

present or potential substantial hazard

to human health and the environment

via the surface water exposure pathway.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25805

E. Conclusion

The EPA believes that the

descriptions of the Occidental Chemical

hazardous waste process and analytical

characterization, in conjunction with

the proposed verification testing

requirements (as discussed later in this

notice), provide a reasonable basis to

grant Occidental Chemical’s petition for

an exclusion of the Rockbox Residue,

Limestone Sludge, and Caustic

Neutralized Wastewater. The EPA

believes the data submitted in support

of the petition show Occidental

Chemical’s process can render the

Rockbox Residue, Limestone Sludge,

and Caustic Neutralized Wastewater

non-hazardous. The EPA has reviewed

the sampling procedures used by

Occidental Chemical and has

determined they satisfy EPA criteria for

collecting representative samples of the

variations in constituent concentrations

in the Rockbox Residue, Limestone

Sludge, and Caustic Neutralized

Wastewater. The data submitted in

support of the petition show that

constituents in Occidental Chemical’s

waste are presently below health-based

levels used in the delisting decisionmaking. The EPA believes that

Occidental Chemical has successfully

demonstrated that the Rockbox Residue,

Limestone Sludge, and Caustic

Neutralized Wastewater is nonhazardous.

The EPA’s decision to exclude this

waste is based on descriptions of the

incineration and the wastewater

treatment activities associated with the

petitioned waste and characterization of

the Rockbox Residue, the Limestone

Sludge, and the Caustic Neutralized

Wastewater. If the proposed rule is

finalized, the petitioned wastes will no

longer be subject to regulation under

parts 262 through 268 and the

permitting standards of part 270. The

EPA therefore, proposes to grant an

exclusion to the Occidental Chemical

Corporation, located in Ingleside, Texas,

for the Rockbox Residue, Limestone

Sludge, and Caustic Neutralized

Wastewater described in its petition.

F. Verification Testing Conditions

(1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations for

the following constituents must not exceed

the following levels (ppm). For the Rockbox

Residue and the Limestone Sludge,

constituents must be measured in the waste

leachate by the method specified in 40 CFR

§ 261.24. The constituents for the Caustic

Neutralized Wastewater must be measured in

total constituents.

(A) Caustic Neutralized Wastewater

(i) Inorganic Constituents

Arsenic—0.35; Barium—14; Lead—0.11;

Silver—0.14; Vanadium—2.1; Zinc—70

(ii) Organic Constituents

Acetone—28; Bromoform—0.07;

Chlorodibromomethane—0.01; 2,3,7,8-

TCDD Equivalent—0.00000004

(B) Rockbox Residue

(i) Inorganic Constituents

Barium—100; Chromium—5; Copper—130;

Lead—1.5; Selenium—1; Tin—210;

Vanadium—30; Zinc—1000

(ii) Organic Constituents

Acetone—400; Bromodichloromethane—

0.14; Bromoform—1.0;

Chlorodibromethane—0.1; Chloroform—

1.0; Dichloromethane—1.0;

Ethylbenzene—70; 2,3,7,8-TCDD

Equivalent—0.000000531

(C) Limestone Sludge

(i) Inorganic Constituents

Antimony—0.6; Arsenic—5; Barium—100;

Beryllium—0.4; Chromium—10;

Cobalt—210; Copper—130; Lead—1.5;

Nickel—70; Selenium—1; Silver—2.0;

Vanadium—30; Zinc—1000

(ii) Organic Constituents

Acetone—400; Bromoform—1,

Chlorodibromomethane—0.10;

Dichloromethane—1.0; Ethylbenzene—

70; 1,1,1—Trichloroethane—20;

Toluene—700;

Trichlorofluoromethane—1000;

Xylene—2000; Diethyl phthalate—3000;

2,3,7,8—TCDD Equivalent—0.0000006

This paragraph provides the levels of

constituents for which Occidental

Chemical must test the leachate from

the Rockbox Residue, and the Limestone

Sludge, and the water in the Caustic

Neutralized Wastewater, below which

these wastes would be considered nonhazardous. The exclusion is effective

when it is signed, but the disposal can

not be implemented until the

verification sampling is completed. If

these constituent levels are exceeded

then that waste is considered to be

hazardous and must be managed as

hazardous waste. If the annual testing of

the waste does not meet the delisting

requirements described in Paragraph 1,

the facility must notify the Agency

according to the Paragraph 6. The

exclusion will be suspended until a

decision is reached by the Agency. The

facility shall provide sampling results

which support the rationale that the

delisting exclusion should not be

withdrawn. The EPA selected the set of

inorganic and organic constituents

specified after reviewing information

about the composition of the waste,

descriptions of Occidental Chemical’s

treatment process, previous test data

provided for the three waste and the

respective health-based levels used in

delisting decision-making. The EPA

established the proposed delisting levels

for this paragraph by back-calculating

the Maximum Allowable Leachate

(MALs) concentrations from the healthbased levels for the constituents of

concern using the EPACML chemicalspecific DAFs of 100, 100, and 7 (See,

previous discussions in Section D—

Agency Evaluation) i.e., MAL = HBL ×

DAF). These delisting levels correspond

to the allowable levels measured in the

TCLP extract of the waste.

(2) Waste Holding and Handling:

Occidental Chemical must store in

accordance with its RCRA permit, or

continue to dispose of as hazardous all

Rockbox Residue and the Limestone Sludge

generated, and continue to discharge the

Caustic Neutralized Wastewater generated in

compliance with Occidental Chemical’s

NPDES permit until the verification testing

described in Condition (3)(A) and (B), as

appropriate, is completed and valid analyses

demonstrate that condition (3) is satisfied. If

the levels of constituents measured in the

samples of the Rockbox Residue, the

Limestone Sludge, and the Caustic

Neutralized Wastewater 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.

Occidental Chemical must continue to treat

and discharge the Caustic Neutralized

Wastewater as provided by the terms of its

NPDES permit. If constituent levels in a

sample exceed any of the delisting levels set

in Condition (1), the waste generated during

the time period corresponding to this sample

must be managed and disposed of in

accordance with Subtitle C of RCRA and

Occidental Chemical’s NPDES permit.

The purpose of this paragraph is to

ensure that any Rockbox Residue and

Limestone Sludge which might contain

hazardous levels of inorganic and

organic constituents are managed and

disposed of in accordance with Subtitle

C of RCRA. Holding the Rockbox

Residue and Limestone Sludge until

characterization is complete will protect

against improper handling of hazardous

material. Further, inasmuch as

Occidental Chemical has a permit to

discharge under the NPDES program, it

must continue to fully meet those

permit requirements and may, according

to this exception, only dispose of the

Caustic Neutralized Wastewater as

provided by that permit. If the EPA

determines that the data collected under

this condition do not support the data

provided for the petition or Occidental

Chemical is no longer meeting the terms

of its NPDES permit, the exclusion will

not cover the three wastes.

(3) Verification Testing Requirements:

Sample collection and analyses, including

quality control procedures, must be

performed according to SW–846

methodologies. If EPA judges the

incineration process to be effective under the

operating conditions used during the initial

verification testing, Occidental Chemical may

replace the testing required in Condition

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

(3)(B). Occidental Chemical must continue to

test as specified in Condition (3)(A) until and

unless notified by EPA in writing that testing
25806 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

in Condition (3)(A) may be replaced by

Condition (3)(B).

(A) Initial Verification Testing: (i) During

the first 40 operating days of the Incinerator

Offgas Treatment System after the final

exclusion is granted, Occidental Chemical

must collect and analyze composites of the

Limestone Sludge, and the Caustic

Neutralized Wastewater. Daily composites

must be composed of representative grab

samples collected every 6 hours during each

unit operating cycle. The two wastes must be

analyzed, prior to disposal, for all of the

constituents listed in Paragraph 1. Occidental

Chemical must report the operational and

analytical test data, including quality control

information, obtained during this initial

period no later than 90 days after the

generation of the two wastes.

(ii) When the Rockbox unit is

decommissioned for cleanout after the final

exclusion is granted, Occidental Chemical

must collect and analyze composites of the

Rockbox Residue. The waste must be

sampled after each decommissioning. Two

composites must be composed of

representative grab samples collected from

the Rockbox unit. The waste must be

analyzed, prior to disposal, for all of the

constituents listed in Paragraph 1. No later

than 90 days after the Rockbox is

decommissioned for cleanout the first two

times after this exclusion becomes final,

Occidental Chemical must report the

operational and analytical test data,

including quality control information.

If the EPA determines that the data

from the initial verification period

demonstrates the treatment process is

effective, Occidental Chemical may

request that EPA allow it to perform

verification testing on a quarterly basis

for the Limestone Sludge and the

Caustic Neutralized Wastewater. The

Rockbox Residue will be sampled

during periodic maintenance. If

approved in writing by EPA, then

Occidental Chemical may begin

verification testing quarterly of the

Limestone Sludge and the Caustic

Neutralized Wastewater.

The EPA believes that an initial

period of 40 days is sufficient for a

facility to collect sufficient data to verify

the data provided for the Limestone

Sludge and the Caustic Neutralized

Wastewater in the 1997 petition is

representative of the waste to be

delisted. If the EPA determines that the

data collected under this condition do

not support the data provided for the

petition, the exclusion will not cover

the generated wastes. If the EPA

determines that the data from the initial

verification period reflected in (3)(A)(i)

demonstrates that the treatment process

is effective, EPA will notify Occidental

Chemical in writing that the testing

conditions in (3)(A)(i) may be replaced

with the testing conditions in (3)(B).

EPA also believes it is sufficient for

Occidental Chemical to collect

verification data for the Rockbox

Residue when the Rockbox unit is

decommissioned for cleanout.

(B) Subsequent Verification Testing:

Following written notification by EPA,

Occidental Chemical may substitute the

testing conditions in (3)(B) for (3)(A)(i).

Occidental Chemical must continue to

monitor operating conditions, and analyze

samples representative of each quarter of

operation during the first year of waste

generation. The samples must represent the

waste generated over one quarter. (This

provision does not apply to the Rockbox

Residue.)

The EPA believes that the

concentrations of the constituents of

concern in the Rockbox Residue, the

Limestone Sludge, and the Caustic

Neutralized Wastewater may vary

somewhat over time. As a result, in

order to ensure that Occidental

Chemical’s treatment process can

effectively handle any variation in

constituent concentrations in the three

wastes, the EPA is proposing a

subsequent verification testing

condition. The proposed subsequent

testing would verify that the incinerator

offgas system is operated in a manner

similar to its operation during the initial

verification testing and that the Rockbox

Residue, the Limestone Sludge, and the

Caustic Neutralized Wastewater, do not

exhibit unacceptable levels of toxic

constituents. Therefore, the EPA is

proposing to require Occidental

Chemical to analyze representative

samples of the Limestone Sludge, and

the Caustic Neutralized Wastewater on

a quarterly basis during the first year of

waste generation (commencing on the

anniversary date of the final exclusion)

as described in Condition (3)(B). The

Rockbox Residue will be sampled when

the unit is out of commission for routine

maintenance.

(C) Termination of Organic Testing for

Limestone Sludge and Caustic Neutralized

Wastewater: Occidental Chemical must

continue testing as required under Condition

(3)(B) for organic constituents specified in

Condition (1)(A)(ii) and (1)(C)(ii) until the

analyses submitted under Condition (3)(B)

show a minimum of two consecutive

quarterly samples below the delisting levels

in Conditions (1)(A)(ii) and (1)(C)(ii).

Occidental Chemical may then request that

quarterly organic testing be terminated. After

EPA notifies Occidental Chemical in writing

it may terminate quarterly organic testing.

Following termination of the quarterly

testing, Occidental Chemical 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 final exclusion). If the waste exceeds the

delisting levels then the waste will not be

delisted.

The EPA is proposing to terminate the

subsequent testing conditions for

organics as allowed in Condition

(1)(A)ii and (1)(C)(ii) after Occidental

Chemical has demonstrated the

delisting levels for the waste are

consistently met. If the annual testing of

the wastes does not meet the delisting

requirements described in Paragraph 1,

the facility must notify the Agency

according to the requirements in

Paragraph 6. The exclusion will be

suspended until a decision is reached

by the Agency. The facility shall

provide sampling results which support

the rationale that the delisting exclusion

should not be withdrawn. In order to

confirm that the characteristics of the

wastes do not change significantly over

time, Occidental Chemical must

continue to analyze a representative

sample of the wastes for organic

constituents on an annual basis (no later

than twelve months after the final

exclusion). If Occidental Chemical

changes operating conditions as

described in Condition (4), then

Occidental Chemical must reinstate all

testing in Condition (3)(A), pending a

new demonstration under this condition

for termination. Occidental Chemical

must continue Organic Testing of the

Rockbox Residue for that waste to be

excluded.

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If

Occidental Chemical significantly changes

the process described in its petition or

implements any processes 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), or its NPDES permit is

changed, revoked or not reissued, or if it

intends to manage the Caustic Neutralized

Wastewater other than by discharge under its

NPDES permit, Occidental Chemical must

notify the EPA in writing and may no longer

handle the wastes generated from the new

process, or no longer discharge as

nonhazardous until the wastes meet the

delisting levels set in Condition (1) and it has

received written approval to do so from EPA.

Condition (4) would allow Occidental

Chemical the flexibility of modifying its

processes (e.g., changes in equipment or

change in operating conditions) to

improve its treatment process. However,

Occidental Chemical must demonstrate

that the change would not affect the

composition or type of waste and

request approval from the EPA. Wastes

generated during the new process

demonstration must be managed as a

hazardous waste until written approval

has been obtained and Condition (1) is

satisfied. If Occidental Chemical

changes operating conditions as

described in Condition (5), then

Occidental Chemical must reinstate all

testing in Condition (3) pending a new
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25807

demonstration under this condition for

termination.

(5) Data Submittals: The data obtained

through Condition 3 must be submitted to

Mr. William Gallagher, Chief, Region 6

Delisting Program, EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, Mail Code, (6PDO) within the time period specified. Records

of operating conditions and analytical data

from Condition (1) must be compiled,

summarized, and maintained on site for a

minimum of five years. These records and

data must be furnished upon request by EPA,

or the State of Texas, and made available for

inspection. Failure to submit the required

data within the specified time period or

maintain the required records on site for the

specified time will be considered by EPA, at

its discretion, sufficient basis to revoke the

exclusion to the extent directed by EPA. All

data must be accompanied by a signed copy

of the following certification statement to

attest to the truth and accuracy of the data

submitted:

Under civil and criminal penalty of law for

the making or submission of false or

fraudulent statements or representations

(pursuant to the applicable provisions of the

Federal Code, which include, but may not be

limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C.

6928), I certify that the information contained

in or accompanying this document is true,

accurate and complete.

As to the (those) identified section(s) of

this document for which I cannot personally

verify its (their) truth and accuracy, I certify

as the company official having supervisory

responsibility for the persons who, acting

under my direct instructions, made the

verification that this information is true,

accurate and complete.

In the event that any of this information is

determined by EPA in its sole discretion to

be false, inaccurate or incomplete, and upon

conveyance of this fact to the company, I

recognize and agree that this exclusion of

waste will be void as if it never had effect

or to the extent directed by EPA and that the

company will be liable for any actions taken

in contravention of the company’s RCRA and

CERCLA obligations premised upon the

company’s reliance on the void exclusion.

To provide appropriate

documentation that Occidental

Chemical’s facility is properly treating

the waste, all analytical data obtained

through Condition (3), including quality

control information, must be compiled,

summarized, and maintained on site for

a minimum of five years. Condition (5)

requires that these data be furnished

upon request and made available for

inspection by any employee or

representative of EPA or the State of

Texas.

If made final, the proposed exclusion

will apply only to 128 cubic yards of

Rockbox Residue, 1,114 cubic yards of

Limestone Sludge, and 148,284 cubic

yards of Caustic Neutralized Wastewater

generated annually at the wastewater

system at the Occidental Chemical

facility after successful verification

testing. Except as described in

Condition (4), the facility would be

required to submit a new petition if the

treatment process specified for the

Incinerator Offgas Treatment System is

significantly altered. Occidental

Chemical would be required to file a

new delisting petition for any new

manufacturing or production

process(es), or significant changes from

the current process(es) described in its

petition which generates the three

wastes or which may or could affect the

composition or type of waste generated.

Additionally if there is any change to

Occidental Chemical’s NPDES permit or

if it wishes to manage the Caustic

Neutralized Wastewater other than by

discharge under its NPDES permit,

except as provided in Condition (4),

Occidental would also be required to

file a new delisting petition. The facility

must manage any of the waste in excess

of 128 cubic yards of Rockbox Residue,

1,114 cubic yards of Limestone Sludge,

and 148,284 cubic yards of Caustic

Neutralized Wastewater generated from

a changed process as hazardous until a

new exclusion is granted.

Although management of the wastes

covered by this petition would not be

subject to Subtitle C jurisdiction upon

final promulgation of an exclusion, the

generator of a delisted waste must either

treat, store, or dispose of the waste in an

on-site facility, or ensure that the waste

is delivered to an off-site storage,

treatment, or disposal facility, either of

which is permitted, licensed, or

registered by a State to manage

municipal or industrial solid waste.

(6) Reopener.

(a) If Occidental Chemical discovers that a

condition at the facility or an assumption

related to the disposal of the excluded waste

that was modeled or predicted in the petition

does not occur as modeled or predicted, then

Occidental Chemical must report any

information relevant to that condition, in

writing, to the Regional Administrator or his

delegate within 10 days of discovering that

condition.

(b) Upon receiving information described

in paragraph (a) regardless of its source, the

Regional Administrator or his delegate will

determine whether the reported condition

requires further action. Further action may

include repealing the exclusion, modifying

the exclusion, or other appropriate response

necessary to protect human health and the

environment.

The purpose of paragraph 6 is to

require Occidental Chemical to disclose

new or different information related to

a condition at the facility or disposal of

the waste if it had or has bearing on the

delisting. This will allow EPA to

reevaluate the exclusion if new or

additional information is provided to

the Agency by Occidental Chemical

which indicates that information on

which EPA’s decision was based was

incorrect or circumstances have

changed such that information is no

longer correct or would cause EPA to

deny the petition if then presented.

Further, although this provision

expressly requires Occidental Chemical

to report differing site conditions or

assumptions used in the petition 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 located at § 268.6.

EPA has recognized that current

delisting regulations contain no express

procedure for reopening a decision if

additional information is received and

although it believes that it has the

authority under RCRA and the

Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C.

551 (1978), et seq. (APA), to take this

action, EPA believes that a clear

statement of its authority in the context

of delistings is merited in light of

Agency experience. (See, e.g., Reynolds

Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 and 62

FR 63458 where the delisted waste did

not leach in the actual disposal site as

it had been modeled thus leading the

Agency to repeal the delisting.) Until

such time as EPA codifies an express

reopener provision in the exclusion

regulations, EPA will include language

similar to that expressed above in

delistings. EPA is considering the

inclusion of a more specific regulatory

process both defining when a delisting

should be reopened and the result of

reopening a granted exclusion and is

soliciting comments on this process.

Since each delisting is waste-specific

and facility-specific or process-specific,

EPA is currently reluctant to adopt a

rule which might inadvertently, for

example, cause an immediate repeal

where specific circumstances would not

merit so precipitous a result. In the

meantime, in the event that an

immediate threat to human health or the

environment presents itself, EPA will

continue to rely on its authority under

the APA to make a good cause finding

to justify an emergency rulemaking

suspending notice and comment. APA

section 553(b).

(7) Notification Requirements: Occidental

Chemical must provide a one-time written

notification to any State Regulatory Agency

to which or through which the delisted waste

described above will be transported for

disposal at least 60 days prior to the

commencement of such activities. Failure to

provide such a notification will result in a

violation of the delisting petition and a

possible revocation of the decision.
25808 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

IV. Effective Date

EPA intends that this rule, should

become effective immediately upon

final publication. The Hazardous and

Solid Waste Amendments of 1984

amended section 3010 of RCRA to allow

rules to become effective in less than six

months when the regulated community

does not need the six-month period to

come into compliance. That is the case

here, because this rule, if finalized,

would reduce the existing requirements

for persons generating hazardous

wastes. In light of the unnecessary

hardship and expense that would be

imposed on this petitioner by an

effective date six months after

publication and the fact that a sixmonth deadline is not necessary to

achieve the purpose of section 3010,

EPA believes that this exclusion should

be effective immediately upon final

publication. These reasons also provide

a basis for making this rule effective

immediately, upon final publication,

under the Administrative Procedure

Act, 5 USC 553(d).

V. Regulatory Impact

Under Executive Order (EO) 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, thereby enabling this

facility to manage its waste as

nonhazardous. There is no additional

impact therefore, due to today’s

proposed rule. Therefore, this proposal

would not be a significant regulation

and no cost/benefit assessment is

required. The Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) has also exempted this

rule from the requirement for OMB

review under Section (6) of Executive

Order 12866.

VI. Children’s Health Protection

Under EO 13045, for all significant

regulatory actions as defined by EO

12866, EPA must provide an evaluation

of the environmental health or safety

effect of a proposed rule on children

and an explanation of why the proposed

rule is preferable to other potentially

effective and reasonably feasible

alternatives considered by EPA. This

proposal is not a significant regulatory

action and is exempt from EO 13045.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, whenever an

agency is required to publish a general

notice of rulemaking for any proposed

or final rule, it must prepare and make

available for public comment a

regulatory flexibility analysis which

describes the impact of the rule on small

entities (i.e., small businesses, small

organizations, and small governmental

jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility

analysis is required however if the

Administrator or delegated

representative certifies that the rule will

not have any impact on small entities.

This rule if promulgated, will not

have an adverse economic impact on

small entities since its effect would be

to reduce the overall costs of EPA’s

hazardous waste regulations.

Accordingly, I hereby certify that this

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.

VIII. 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

(Pub. L. 96–511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

and have been assigned OMB Control

Number 2050–0053.

IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),

Public Law 104–4, which was signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a written statement for rules

with Federal mandates that may result

in estimated costs to State, local, and

tribal governments in the aggregate, or

to the private sector of $100 million or

more in any one year. When such a

statement is required for EPA rules,

under section 205 of the UMRA, EPA

must identify and consider alternatives,

including the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

EPA must select that alternative, unless

the Administrator explains in the final

rule why it was not selected or it is

inconsistent with law. Before EPA

establishes regulatory requirements that

may significantly or uniquely affect

small governments, including tribal

governments, it must develop under

section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, giving them

meaningful and timely input in the

development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising them

on compliance with the regulatory

requirements. The UMRA generally

defines a Federal mandate for regulatory

purposes as one that imposes an

enforceable duty upon State, local, or

tribal governments or the private sector.

The EPA finds that today’s proposed

delisting decision is deregulatory in

nature and does not impose any

enforceable duty upon State, local, or

tribal governments or the private sector.

In addition, the proposed delisting does

not establish any regulatory

requirements for small governments and

so does not require a small government

agency plan under UMRA section 203.

X. Intergovernmental Partnership

Under EO 12875, EPA may not

promulgate any regulation which

creates an unfunded mandate upon

state, local or tribal government. EPA

finds that today’s proposed delisting

decision is deregulatory in nature and

does not impose any enforceable duty

upon state, local or tribal governments

(See Section IX (UMRA) above) and

accordingly, this action is exempt from

the requirements of EO 12875.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous

waste, Recycling, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C.

6921(f).

Dated: April 17, 1998.

Robert Hannesschlager,

Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and

Permitting Division.

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 and 2 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—Wastes

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25809

TABLE 1. WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description

* * * * * * *

Occidental Chemical, Ingleside, Texas ........ Limestone sludge, (at a maximum generation of 1,114 cubic yards per calendar year)

Rockbox Residue, (at a maximum generation of 128 cubic yards per calendar year) and

Caustic Neutralized Wastewater, (at a maximum generation of 148,282 cubic yards per

calendar year) generated by Occidental Chemical using the wastewater treatment process to treat the Rockbox Residue, the Limestone Sludge, and the Caustic Neutralized

Wastewater (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F025, F001, F003, and F005) generated at

Occidental Chemical.

Occidental Chemical 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

levels (ppm). For the Rockbox Residue and the Limestone Sludge, constituents must be

measured in the waste leachate by the method specified in 40 CFR Part 261.24. The

constituents for the Caustic Neutralized Wastewater must be measured in total constituents.

(A) Caustic Neutralized Wastewater.

(i) Inorganic Constituents Arsenic-0.35; Barium-14; Lead-0.11; Silver-0.14; Vanadium-2.1;

Zinc-70.

(ii) Organic Constituents Acetone-28; Bromoform-0.07; Chlorodibromomethane-0.01;

2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalent-0.00000004.

(B) Rockbox Residue.

(i) Inorganic Constituents Barium-200; Chromium-10; Copper-130; Lead-1.5; Selenium-1;

Tin-210; Vanadium-30; Zinc-1000.

(ii) Organic Constituents Acetone-400; Bromodichloromethane-0.14; Bromoform-1.0;

Chlorodibromethane-0.1; Chloroform-1.0; Dichloromethane-1.0; Ethylbenzene-70;

2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalent-0.000000531.

(C) Limestone Sludge.

(i) Inorganic Constituents Antimony-0.6; Arsenic-5; Barium-200; Beryllium-0.4; Chromium10; Cobalt-210; Copper-130; Lead-1.5; Nickel-70; Selenium-1; Silver-2.0; Vanadium-30;

Zinc-1000.

(ii) Organic Constituents Acetone-400; Bromoform-1, Chlorodibromomethane-0.1;

Dichloromethane-1.0; Ethylbenzene-70; 1,1,1-Trichloroethane-20; Toluene-700;

Trichlorofluoromethane-1000; Xylene-2000; Diethyl phthalate-3000; 2,3,7,8-TCDD

Equivalent-0.0000006.

(2) Waste Holding and Handling: Occidental Chemical must store in accordance with its

RCRA permit, or continue to dispose of as hazardous waste all Rockbox Residue, and

the Limestone Sludge generated, and continue to discharge the Caustic Neutralized

Wastewater generated in compliance with Occidental Chemical’s NPDES permit until

the verification testing described in Condition (3)(A) and (3)(B), as appropriate, is completed and valid analyses demonstrate that condition (3) is satisfied. If the levels of constituents measured in the samples of the Rockbox Residue, the Limestone Sludge, and

the Caustic Neutralized Wastewater 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. Occidental Chemical must continue to treat

and discharge the Caustic Neutralized Wastewater as provided by the terms of its

NPDES permit. If constituent levels in a sample exceed any of the delisting levels waste

generated during the time period corresponding to this sample must be managed and

disposed of in accordance with Subtitle C of RCRA and Occidental Chemical’s NPDES

permit.

(3) Verification Testing Requirements: Sample collection and analyses, including quality

control procedures, must be performed according to SW–846 methodologies. If EPA

judges the incineration process to be effective under the operating conditions used during the initial verification testing, Occidental Chemical may replace the testing required

in condition (3)(A) with the testing required in Condition (3)(B). Occidental Chemical

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) During the first 40 operating days of the Incinerator

Offgas Treatment System after the final exclusion is granted, Occidental Chemical must

collect and analyze composites of the Limestone Sludge, and the Caustic Neutralized

Wastewater. Daily composites must be composed of representative grab samples collected every 6 hours during each unit operating cycle. The two wastes must be analyzed, prior to disposal, for all of the constituents listed in Paragraph 1. Occidental

Chemical must report the operational and analytical test data, including quality control

information, obtained during this initial period no later 90 days after the generation of

the two wastes.
25810 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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

Facility Address Waste description

(ii) When the Rockbox unit is decommissioned for cleanout, after the final exclusion is

granted, Occidental Chemical must collect and analyze composites of the Rockbox Residue. Two composites must be composed of representative grab samples collected from

the Rockbox unit. The waste must be analyzed, prior to disposal, for all of the constituents listed in Paragraph 1. No later than 90 days after the Rockbox is decommissioned

for cleanout the first two times after this exclusion becomes final, Occidental Chemical

must report the operational and analytical test data, including quality control information.

(B) Subsequent Verification Testing: Following written notification by EPA, Occidental

Chemical may substitute the testing conditions in (3)(B) for (3)(A)(i). Occidental Chemical must continue to monitor operating conditions, analyze samples representative of

each quarter of operation during the first year of waste generation. The samples must

represent the waste generated over one quarter. (This provision does not apply to the

Rockbox Residue.)

(C) Termination of Organic Testing for the Limestone Sludge and the Caustic Neutralized

Wastewater: Occidental Chemical must continue testing as required under Condition

(3)(B) for organic constituents specified in Condition (1)(A)(ii) and (1)(C)(ii) until the

analyses submitted under Condition (3)(B) show a minimum of two consecutive quarterly samples below the delisting levels in Condition (1)(A)(ii) and (1)(C)(ii), Occidental

Chemical may then request that quarterly organic testing be terminated. After EPA notifies Occidental Chemical in writing it may terminate quarterly organic testing. Following

termination of the quarterly testing, Occidental Chemical 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 Occidental Chemical 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), or its

NPDES permit is changed, revoked or not reissued, or if it intends to manage the Caustic Neutralized Wastewater other than by discharge under its NPDES permit, Occidental

Chemical must notify the EPA in writing and may no longer handle the wastes generated from the new process or no longer discharges as nonhazardous until the wastes

meet the delisting levels set in Condition (1) and it has received written approval to do

so from EPA.

(5) Data Submittals: The data obtained through Condition 3 must be submitted to Mr. William Gallagher, Chief, Region 6 Delisting Program, U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, Mail Code, (6PD-O) within the time period specified. Records

of operating conditions and analytical data from Condition (1) must be compiled, summarized, and maintained on site for a minimum of five years. These records and data

must be furnished upon request by EPA, or the State of Texas, and made available for

inspection. Failure to submit the required data within the specified time period or maintain the required records on site for the specified time period or maintain the required

records on site for the specified time will be considered by EPA, at its discretion, sufficient basis to revoke the exclusion to the extent directed by EPA. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the following certification statement to attest to the truth

and accuracy of the data submitted:

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 USC § 1001 and 42 USC § 6928), I

certify that the information contained in or accompanying this document is true, accurate

and complete.

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

its (their) truth and accuracy, I certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility for the persons who, acting under my direct instructions, made the verification

that this information is true, accurate and complete.

In the event that any of this information is determined by EPA in its sole discretion to be

false, inaccurate or incomplete, and upon conveyance of this fact to the company, I recognize and agree that this exclusion of waste will be void as if it never had effect or to

the extent directed by EPA and that the company will be liable for any actions taken in

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

company’s reliance on the void exclusion.

(6) Reopener.

(a) If Occidental Chemical discovers that a condition at the facility or an assumption related to the disposal of the excluded waste that was modeled or predicted in the petition

does not occur as modeled or predicted, then Occidental Chemical must report any information relevant to that condition, in writing, to the Director of the Multimedia Planning

and Permitting Division or his delegate within 10 days of discovering that condition.

(b)Upon receiving information described in paragraph (a) from any source, the Director or

his delegate will determine whether the reported condition requires further action. Further action may include revoking the exclusion, modifying the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25811

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

Facility Address Waste description

(7) Notification Requirements: Occidental Chemical must provide a one-time written notification to any State Regulatory Agency to which or through which the debited waste described above will be transported for disposal at least 60 days prior to the commencement of such activities. Failure to provide such a notification will result in a violation of

the delisting petition and a possible revocation of the decision.

* * * * * * *

TABLE 2. WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description

* * * * * * *

Occidental Chemical .......... Ingleside, Texas ........ Limestone sludge, (at a maximum generation of 1,114 cubic yards per calendar year)

Rockbox Residue, (at a maximum generation of 128 cubic yards per calendar year) and

Caustic Neutralized Wastewater, (at a maximum generation of 148,282 cubic yards per

calendar year) generated by Occidental Chemical using the wastewater treatment process to treat the Rockbox Residue, the Limestone Sludge, and the Caustic Neutralized

Wastewater (EPA Hazardous Waste No. K019, K020. Occidental Chemical must implement a testing program that meets conditions found in Table 1. Wastes Excluded From

Non-Specific Sources for the petition to be valid.

* * * * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–12427 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR 61

[IB Docket No. 98–60; FCC 98–78]

Policies and Rules for Alternative

Incentive Based Regulation of Comsat

Corporation

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Commission has issued a

notice of proposed rulemaking to

consider replacing traditional rate of

return regulation with an alternative

incentive based regulation plan for

Comsat Corporation (‘‘Comsat’’) with

respect to Comsat’s provision of

INTELSAT switched voice, private line

and occasional-use video services to

those markets where the Commission

finds it dominant. The Commission

believes that its current rate of return

regulation that would be applicable to

Comsat’s dominant markets may no

longer be an efficient or effective means

of regulating Comsat’s rates and may not

create adequate efficiency incentives for

Comsat. Therefore, the Commission

invites interested parties to file

comments in response to the

Commission’s tentative conclusions set

forth in the notice of proposed

rulemaking regarding alternative

incentive based regulation for Comsat’s

dominant markets.

DATES: Interested parties may file

comments by May 26, 1998 and reply

comments by June 5, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

1919 M Street, NW., Washington, D.C.

20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel Connors, International Bureau,

Satellite Policy Branch, (202) 418–0755;

or Kathleen Campbell, International

Bureau, Satellite Policy Branch (202)

418–0753.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking in IB Docket No.

98–60 that is contained in the

Commission’s Order and Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking; FCC 98–78,

adopted April 24, 1998, and released

April 28, 1998. The complete text of the

Order and Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking is available for inspection

and copying during normal business

hours in the FCC Reference Center

(Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.

Washington, D.C., and from the

Commission’s world-wide-web page on

the Internet (http://www.fcc.gov), and

also may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street, NW.,

Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.

Because this Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking contains information

collections that affect less than 10

persons and, therefore, is not subject to

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. As required by

section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, the Commission has prepared an

Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Certification certifying that the

proposed rule will not impact small

entities.

1. The Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Certification necessary to comply with

the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.

§ 601 et seq., is set forth below.

2. The Paperwork Reduction Act does

not apply to the rules adopted herein

because such rules apply to less than 10

persons.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Certification

3. The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(‘‘RFA’’) requires that an initial

regulatory flexibility analysis be

prepared for notice-and-comment

rulemaking proceedings, unless the

agency certifies that ‘‘the rule will not,

if promulgated, have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.’’ U.S.C.

§ 605(b). The RFA generally defines

‘‘small entity’’ as having the same

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small

governmental jurisdiction.’’ Id. § 601(6).

In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’

has the same meaning as the term

‘‘small business concern’’ under the

Small Business Act. Id. § 601(3). A small

business concern is one which: (a) is