32746 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules

result in expenditures of $100 million or

more for State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or the

private sector in any one year. Thus,

today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA.

F. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership under Executive Order

12875

In compliance with Executive Order

12875, the EPA has involved State and

local governments in the development

of this rule. State and local air pollution

control associations participated in the

regulatory negotiation and have also

provided regulatory review. State and

local air pollution control

representatives participated in the

regulatory negotiation and have also

provided input into subsequent

regulatory development.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 59

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Architectural

coatings, Consumer and commercial

products, Incorporation by Reference,

Ozone, Regulatory negotiation, Volatile

organic compound.

TABLE 1.—ARCHITECTURAL COATING

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND

CONTENT LEVELS

[Unless otherwise specified, units are in grams

of VOC per liter of coating thinned to the

manufacturer’s maximum recommendation

excluding the volume of any water, exempt

compounds, or colorant added to tint

bases.]

Coating category

Effective

Apr. 1,

1997

Antenna coatings ............................ 530

Antifouling coatings ......................... 400

Anti-graffiti coatings ........................ 600

Bituminous coatings and mastics ... 500

Bond breakers ................................ 600

Chalkboard resurfacers .................. 450

Concrete curing compounds ........... 350

Concrete protective coatings .......... 400

Dry fog coatings .............................. 400

Extreme high durability coatings .... 800

Fire-retardant/resistive coatings:

Clear ........................................ 850

Opaque .................................... 450

Flat coatings:

Exterior .................................... 250

Interior ...................................... 250

Floor coatings ................................. 400

Flow coatings .................................. 650

Form release compounds ............... 450

Graphic arts coatings (sign paints) 500

Heat reactive coatings .................... 420

High temperature coatings ............. 650

Impacted immersion coatings ......... 780

Industrial maintenance coatings ..... 450

Lacquers (including lacquer sanding sealers) .................................. 680

Magnesite cement coatings ............ 600

TABLE 1.—ARCHITECTURAL COATING

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND

CONTENT LEVELS—Continued

[Unless otherwise specified, units are in grams

of VOC per liter of coating thinned to the

manufacturer’s maximum recommendation

excluding the volume of any water, exempt

compounds, or colorant added to tint

bases.]

Coating category

Effective

Apr. 1,

1997

Mastic texture coatings ................... 300

Metallic pigmented coatings ........... 500

Multi-colored coatings ..................... 580

Nonferrous ornamental metal lacquers and surface protectants .... 870

Nonflat coatings:

Exterior .................................... 380

Interior ...................................... 380

Nuclear coatings ............................. 420

Pretreatment wash primers ............ 780

Primers and undercoaters .............. 350

Quick-dry coatings:

Enamels ................................... 450

Primers, sealers, and

undercoaters ........................ 450

Repair and maintenance thermoplastic coatings ............................ 650

Roof coatings .................................. 250

Rust preventative coatings ............. 400

Sanding sealers (other than lacquer sanding sealers) ................. 550

Sealers (including interior clear

wood sealers) .............................. 400

Shellacs:

Clear ........................................ 650

Opaque .................................... 550

Stains:

Clear and semitransparent ...... 550

Opaque .................................... 350

Low solids ................................ 1 120

Swimming pool coatings ................. 600

Thermoplastic rubber coatings and

mastics ........................................ 550

Traffic marking coatings ................. 150

Varnishes ........................................ 450

Waterproofing sealers and treatments:

Clear ........................................ 600

Opaque .................................... 400

Wood preservatives:

Below ground wood preservatives ...................................... 550

Clear and semitransparent ...... 550

Opaque .................................... 350

Low solids ................................ 1 120

1 Units are grams of VOC per liter of coating, including water and exempt compounds,

thinned to the maximum thinning recommended by the manufacturer.

Dated: June 18, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–16009 Filed 6–24–96; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 261

[SW–FRL–5525–3]

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for

comment.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is proposing to grant a

petition to Bekaert Steel Corporation

(Bekaert) of Rogers, Arkansas to exclude

(or ‘‘delist’’), certain solid wastes

generated at its facility from the lists of

hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR

261.31 and 261.32 (hereinafter all

sectional references are to 40 CFR

unless otherwise indicated). This action

responds to a delisting petition

submitted under 40 CFR 260.20, which

allows any person to petition the

Administrator to modify or revoke any

provision of 40 CFR Parts 260 through

266, 268 and 273, and under 40 CFR

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

conditionally excluded from the

requirements of hazardous waste

regulations under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

DATES: The EPA is requesting public

comments on this proposed decision.

Comments will be accepted until

August 9, 1996. 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 Jane N. Saginaw, Regional

Administrator, whose address appears

below, by July 10, 1996. The request

must contain the information prescribed

in 40 CFR 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Send three copies of your

comments. Two copies should be sent to

William Gallagher, Delisting Program,

Multimedia Planning and Permitting

Division (6PD–O), Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. A third

copy should be sent to the Arkansas

Department of Pollution Control and

Ecology, P.O. Box 8913, 8001 National

Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72219–

8913. Identify your comments at the top

with this regulatory docket number: ‘‘F–

96–ARDEL–BEKAERT.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules 32747

Requests for a hearing should be

addressed to the Regional

Administrator, Region 6, Environmental

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas 75202.

The RCRA regulatory docket for this

proposed rule is located at the Region 6,

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202 and

is available for viewing in the EPA

library on the 12th floor from 8:30 a.m.

to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding Federal holidays. Call (214)

665–6444 for appointments. The docket

may also be viewed at the Arkansas

Department of Pollution Control and

Ecology, 8001 National Drive, Little

Rock, Arkansas 72219–8913. The public

may copy material from any regulatory

docket at no cost for the first 100 pages,

and at $0.15 per page for additional

copies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: For

technical information concerning this

notice, contact David Vogler, Delisting

Program (6PD–O), Region 6,

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202, (214)

665–7428.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Authority

On January 16, 1981, as part of its

final and interim final regulations

implementing Section 3001 of RCRA,

the 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

may not be hazardous. 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 Agency 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 Agency to determine

whether the waste contains any of the

other identified constituents 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 non-hazardous

based on the hazardous waste

characteristics.

In addition, residues from the

treatment, storage, or disposal of listed

hazardous wastes and mixtures

containing listed hazardous wastes are

also considered hazardous wastes. 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 Agency

on procedural grounds. See 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). On December 21,

1995, the EPA proposed rules related to

waste mixtures and residues at 60 FR

66344 and invited public comment.

These references should be consulted

for more information regarding mixtures

and residues.

B. Approach Used To Evaluate This

Petition

Bekaert’s petition requests a delisting

for a listed hazardous waste. In making

the initial delisting determination, the

EPA evaluated the petitioned waste

against the listing criteria and factors

cited in § 261.11 (a)(2) and (a)(3). Based

on this review, the EPA 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 waste

remained hazardous based on the

factors for which the waste was

originally listed, the EPA would have

proposed to deny the petition.) The EPA

then evaluated the waste with respect to

other factors or criteria to assess

whether there is a reasonable basis to

believe that such additional factors

could cause the waste to be hazardous.

The EPA considered whether the waste

is acutely toxic, and considered the

toxicity of the constituents, the

concentration of the constituents in the

waste, their tendency to migrate and to

bioaccumulate, their persistence in the

environment once released from the

waste, plausible and specific types of

management of the petitioned waste, the

quantities of waste generated, and waste

variability.

For this delisting determination, the

EPA used such information to identify

plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground

water, surface water, air) for hazardous

constituents present in the petitioned

waste. The EPA determined that

disposal in a Subtitle D landfill is the

most reasonable, worst-case disposal

scenario for Bekaert’s petitioned waste,

and that the major exposure route of

concern would be ingestion of

contaminated ground water. Therefore,

the EPA used a particular fate and

transport model to predict the

maximum allowable concentrations of

hazardous constituents that may be

released from the petitioned waste after

disposal and to determine the potential

impact of the disposal of Bekaert’s

petitioned waste on human health and

the environment. Specifically, the EPA

used the maximum estimated waste

volume 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 current

Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)

promulgated under the Safe Drinking

Water Act (SWDA) or health-based

levels derived from Verified Reference

Doses (RfDs). The value used for copper

is an action level for treatment of a

water supply in lieu of a MCL (40 CFR

§ 141.80).

The EPA believes that this fate and

transport model represents a reasonable

worst-case scenario for disposal of the

petitioned waste in a landfill, and that

a reasonable worst-case scenario is

appropriate when evaluating whether a

waste should be relieved of the

protective management constraints of
32748 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules

RCRA Subtitle C. The use of a

reasonable worst-case scenario results in

conservative values for the compliancepoint concentrations and ensures that

the waste, once removed from

hazardous waste regulation, will not

pose a threat to human health or the

environment. 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, the EPA does not

currently consider extensive sitespecific factors when applying the fate

and transport model.

The EPA also considers the

applicability of groundwater monitoring

data during the evaluation of delisting

petitions. The EPA normally requests

groundwater monitoring data for wastes

currently managed or have ever been

managed in a land based management

unit. Groundwater monitoring data

provides significant additional

information important to fully

characterize the potential impact (if any)

of the disposal of a petitioned waste on

human health and the environment. In

this case, the EPA determined that the

groundwater monitoring data was not

applicable to the evaluation of the

petitioned waste. Specifically, Bekaert

currently disposes of the petitioned

waste generated from its filter press

which is part of their wastewater

treatment facility in an off-site RCRA

hazardous waste landfill (which is not

owned/operated by Bekaert). This

landfill did not begin accepting the

petitioned waste generated by the filter

press until September 1991. In other

words, the petitioned waste comprises a

small fraction of the total waste

managed in the off-site units. The

Agency, therefore, believes that any

ground-water monitoring data from the

landfill would not be meaningful for an

evaluation of the specific effect of the

petitioned waste on ground water.

However, the potential impact of these

wastes on ground water is predicted

through the application of a fate and

transport model.

Finally, the Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments of 1984 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

Bekaert Steel Corporation, One

Bekaert Drive, Rogers, Arkansas, 72757

A. Petition for Exclusion

Bekaert, located in Rogers, Arkansas,

manufactures steel cord by reducing the

diameter of steel rods followed by

electroplating and further reduction.

Bekaert petitioned the Agency to

exclude its wastewater treatment filter

cake presently listed as EPA Hazardous

Waste No. F006—‘‘Wastewater

treatment sludges from electroplating

operations except from the following

processes: (1) Sulfuric acid anodizing of

aluminum; (2) tin plating on carbon

steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated basis)

on carbon steel; (5) cleaning/stripping

associated with tin, zinc, and aluminum

plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical

etching and milling of aluminum’’. The

listed constituents of concern for EPA

Hazardous Waste No. F006 are:

cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel

and cyanide (complexed) (see 40 CFR

part 261, Appendix VII).

Bekaert petitioned the EPA to exclude

its waste filter cake because it does not

believe that the waste meets the criteria

for which it was listed. Bekaert also

believes that the waste does not contain

any other constituents that would

render it hazardous. Review of this

petition included consideration of the

original listing criteria, as well as the

additional factors required by the

Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. See

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

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

(4). Today’s proposal to grant this

petition for delisting is the result of the

EPA’s evaluation of Bekaert’s petition.

B. Background

On September 11, 1995, Bekaert

petitioned the EPA to exclude, from the

lists of hazardous wastes contained in

40 CFR § 261.31 and § 261.32, its

wastewater filter cake generated from its

wastewater treatment system. Bekaert

subsequently provided additional

information to complete its petition.

In support of its petition, Bekaert

submitted: (1) Descriptions of its

manufacturing and wastewater

treatment processes, including

schematic diagrams; (2) a list of all raw

materials and Material Safety Data

Sheets (MSDSs) for all trade name

products used in the manufacturing and

waste treatment processes; (3) results

from total constituent analyses for

fourteen metals including the eight

Toxicity Characteristic (TC) metals

listed in § 261.24 (i.e., the TC metals)

and antimony, beryllium, copper,

nickel, thallium, and zinc from

representative samples of the petitioned

waste; (4) results from the Toxicity

Characteristic Leaching Procedure

(TCLP, SW–846 Method 1311) for

fourteen metals which include the eight

TC metals, and antimony, beryllium,

copper, nickel, thallium, and zinc from

representative samples of the petitioned

waste; (5) results from total constituent

analysis for total and reactive sulfide

and cyanide for representative samples

of the petitioned waste; (6) results from

total oil and grease analyses from

representative samples of the petitioned

waste; (7) test results and information

regarding the hazardous characteristics

of ignitability, corrosivity, and

reactivity; and (8) results from total

constituent analyses for certain volatile

and semi-volatile organic compounds

from representative samples of the

petitioned waste.

Bekaert manufactures steel cord

which is sold to the tire manufacturing

industry for use in reinforcing tires. The

steel cord is produced from steel rod

which has been reduced in size and

electroplated with a copper and zinc

alloy.

The manufacturing processes

contribute to the petitioned waste from

the following sources: water from the

caustic scrubbers, water from the

hydrochloric acid scrubbers, water from

the rinse used to remove soap from

wire, water from the cooling water bath

following fluidized bed heater, waste

acid from the hydrochloric acid

pickling, water from the rinse following

the zinc plating bath, water from the

cooling bath following induction

heating, phosphoric acid from the

phosphoric acid bath, water from the

phosphoric acid rinse bath and the

spent oil/water mixture (non-petroleum)

used as a lubricant in the process.

Wastewaters from the manufacturing

process are collected and stored in four

central tanks prior to discharge to the

wastewater treatment plant. The

petitioned waste is generated from the

wastewater treatment plant and not

directly from the manufacturing

process. Wastewaters are transferred

from the holding tanks to a treatment

tank where it is neutralized with

sodium hydroxide. After neutralization,

one of several methods are employed to

remove solids: (1) A polymer is added

to promote flocculation. This

wastewater is then sent to a sludge

thickening tank from which the sludge

is sent to the filter press; (2) the

wastewater is routed to an ultrafiltration

unit to remove solids which are routed

to the filter press; or (3) the wastewater

is routed to a clarifier where a polymer

is added to aid in solids precipitation.

The solids are routed to the sludge

thickening tank and then to the filter

press.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules 32749

The petitioned waste is dropped from

the filter press at the end of the

wastewater treatment process into a

18×8×5 foot hopper. The F006 filter

press cake is currently sent to a

permitted hazardous waste facility for

disposal.

To collect representative samples,

petitioners are normally requested to

divide the unit into four quadrants (not

exceeding 10,000 square feet per

quadrant) and randomly collect five

full-depth core samples from each

quadrant. The five full-depth core

samples are then composited (mixed) by

quadrant to produce a total of four

composite samples. See Test Methods

for Evaluating Solid Wastes: Physical/

Chemical Methods, U.S. EPA, Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response,

Publication SW–846 (third edition),

November 1986, and Petitions to Delist

Hazardous Wastes—A Guidance

Manual, (second edition), U.S. EPA,

Office of Solid Waste, (EPA/530–R–93–

007), March 1993.

Bekaert submitted analytical results

from five composite filter cake samples

collected from the hoppers at five

different days taken at intervals during

a period between May 25, 1995, and

July 10, 1995. This was done to

demonstrate that the waste composition

did not vary with time. In order account

for spatial variability, grab samples were

collected from four randomly selected

sample locations based on a grid pattern

that divided each hopper into ten grids.

The entire depth (approximately five

feet) of each hopper was sampled. A

composite of the four grab samples was

obtained to represent that day’s sample.

Bekaert 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 § 261, Appendix VIII, as well as

the following six constituents not found

in Appendix VIII: acetone,

ethylbenzene, isophorone, 4-methyl-2-

pentanone, styrene, and total xylenes.

Based on this review, it was not

anticipated that any of the Appendix

VIII organic compounds or any of the

six additional organic compounds

would be present in the petitioned

waste.

Using the list of constituents of

concern, Bekaert analyzed the five

composite samples for the total

concentrations (i.e., mass of a particular

constituent per mass of waste) of the

eight TCLP metals, antimony, beryllium,

copper, nickel, thallium, zinc, selected

volatile and semi-volatile organic

constituents, and oil and grease content.

These five samples were also analyzed

to determine whether the waste

exhibited ignitable, corrosive, or

reactive properties as defined,

respectively, under § 261.21, § 261.22,

and § 261.23, including analysis for total

constituent concentrations of cyanide,

sulfide, reactive cyanide, and reactive

sulfide. These five samples were also

analyzed for TCLP concentrations (i.e.,

mass of a particular constituent per unit

volume of extract) of the eight TC

metals, and antimony, beryllium,

copper, nickel, thallium, and zinc.

C. Agency Analysis

Bekaert used SW–846 Methods 7041,

7091, 7191, and 7196A, in respective

order, to quantify the total constituent

concentrations and leachable (TCLP)

concentrations of antimony, beryllium,

chromium, and hexavalent chromium;

and SW–846 Method 6010A was used to

quantify total constituent concentrations

and leachable (TCLP) concentrations of

arsenic, barium, cadmium, copper, lead,

nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and

zinc in samples. SW–846 methods 7471

and 7470 were used to determine total

and leachable (in respective order)

constituent concentrations for mercury.

Using SW 846 Method 9070, Bekaert

determined that the petitioned waste

had a maximum oil and grease content

of 5700 mg/kg.

Characteristic testing was conducted

on the samples of the petitioned waste,

including analysis for reactive cyanide

and reactive sulfide (SW–846 Methods

7.3.3.2 and 7.3.4.1, respectively),

ignitability (ASTM D–4982B), and

corrosivity (SW–846 Method 9045).

Bekaert used SW–846 Methods 9012

and 4500 to quantify concentrations of

the total and complexed cyanide,

respectively, in the samples. Bekaert

used Method 9030A to quantify the total

constituent concentrations of sulfide in

the samples.

Table 1 presents the maximum total

constituent and leachate concentrations

for the eight TC metals, antimony,

beryllium, copper, nickel, thallium, and

zinc for the composite samples of the

petitioned waste. Table 1 also presents

maximum reactive cyanide and reactive

sulfide concentrations.

The detection limits presented in

Table 1 represent the lowest

concentrations quantifiable by Bekaert

when using the appropriate SW–846 or

Agency-approved analytical methods to

analyze its waste. (Detection limits may

vary according to the waste and waste

matrix being analyzed, i.e., the

‘‘cleanliness’’ waste matrices varies and

‘‘dirty’’ waste matrices may cause

interferences, thus raising the detection

limits).

Bekaert used SW–846 Methods 8240

and 8270 to quantify the total

constituent concentrations of 30 volatile

and 71 semi-volatile organic

compounds, respectively, in the waste

samples. This suite of constituents

included all of the organic constituents

listed in § 261.24 as well as other

organic compounds commonly analyzed

for in hazardous waste samples. Bekaert

used SW–846 Methods 8240, 8270,

8150A, 3510A, and 8080 to quantify the

leachable concentrations of 11 volatile,

13 semi-volatile, 2 chlorinated

herbicides, and 7 pesticides (all organic

compounds), respectively, in the waste

samples, following extraction by SW–

846 Method 1311 (TCLP). This suite of

constituents included all of the organic

constituents listed in § 261.24. Table 2

presents the maximum total and

leachate concentrations of all detected

organic constituents in Bekaert’s waste

and waste extract samples. Lastly, on

the basis of explanations and analytical

data provided by Bekaert, none of the

analyzed samples exhibited the

characteristics of ignitability,

corrosivity, or reactivity. See § 261.21,

§ 261.22 and § 261.23.

TABLE 1.—MAXIMUM TOTAL CONSTITUENT AND LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) 1 FILTER PRESS WASTE

Inorganic constituents

Total

constituent analyses

(mg/kg)

TCLP

leachate

analyses

(mg/l)

Antimony ................... < 0.50 0.34

Arsenic ...................... < 5.00 < 0.05

Barium ....................... 2.5 1.3

Beryllium ................... < 0.10 < 0.05

Cadmium ................... 3.1 < 0.05

Chromium .................. 68 < 0.05

Chromium

(hexavalent) ........... < 5.0 < 0.05

Copper ...................... 580 12

Lead .......................... < 5.0 < 0.10

Mercury ..................... < 0.125 < 0.005

Nickel ........................ 43 1.1

Selenium ................... 6.4 0.091

Silver ......................... 1.2 0.2

Thallium ..................... < 10 < 0.10

Zinc ........................... 16000 470

Cyanide (complexed)

(total) ..................... 0.31 0.030

Cyanide (soluble) ...... < 0.13 NA

Cyanide (reactive) ..... < 0.050 NA

Sulfide (reactive) ....... <10 NA

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

table. 1These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent found in any

one sample. These levels do not represent the

specific levels found in one sample.

NA Denotes that the constituent was not

analyzed.
32750 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2.—MAXIMUM TOTAL CONSTITUENT AND LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) 1 FILTER PRESS

SLUDGE

Organic constituents

Total

constituent analyses

(mg/kg)

TCLP

leachate

analyses

(mg/l)

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 0.120 < 0.100

Dichloromethane ....... 0.008 NA

4-Methylphenol .......... <1.0 0.067

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

table. 1These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent found in any

one sample. These levels do not represent the

specific levels found in one sample.

NA Denotes that the constituent was not

analyzed.

Bekaert submitted a signed certification

stating that the maximum volume of

filter cake generated on an annual basis

is 1,022 cubic yards of waste. The EPA

reviews a petitioner’s estimates and, on

occasion, has requested a petitioner to

re-evaluate estimated waste volume.

The EPA accepted Bekaert’s certified

estimate of 1,022 cubic yards of annual

generated waste. The petition was

evaluated at a waste volume of 1,250

cubic yards of annual generated which

is a more conservative approach and

also allows for future fluctuations in

waste output.

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 a final exclusion.

D. Agency Evaluation

The EPA considered the

appropriateness of alternative waste

management scenarios for Bekaert’s

petitioned waste and decided, based on

the information provided in the

petition, that disposal in a municipal

solid waste landfill is the most

reasonable, worst-case scenario for this

waste. Under a landfill disposal

scenario, the major exposure route of

concern for any hazardous constituents

would be ingestion of contaminated

ground water. The EPA, therefore,

evaluated Bekaert’s petitioned waste

using the modified EPACML which

predicts the potential for groundwater

contamination from wastes that are

landfilled. 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 worst-case

contaminant levels in groundwater 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 groundwater recharge

for a specific volume of waste. The EPA

requests comments on the use of the

EPACML as applied to the evaluation of

Bekaert’s petitioned waste.

For the evaluation of Bekaert’s

petitioned waste, the EPA used the

EPACML to evaluate the mobility of the

hazardous inorganic constituents

detected in the extract of samples of

Bekaert’s petitioned waste. The EPA

intends to evaluate petitions for

generated wastes on a case-by-case

basis. The DAFs are currently calculated

assuming an ongoing process generates

wastes for 20 years. EPA’s evaluation,

using a DAF of 96, maximum annual

waste volume estimate of 1,250 cubic

yards and the maximum reported TCLP

leachate concentrations (see Table 1),

yielded compliance-point

concentrations (see Table 3) that are

below the current health-based levels

used in delisting decision-making.

The maximum reported or calculated

leachate concentrations of antimony,

barium, copper, nickel, selenium, silver,

and zinc in the petitioned waste yielded

compliance point concentrations below

the health-based levels used in delisting

decision-making. The EPA did not

evaluate the mobility of the remaining

inorganic constituents (i.e., arsenic,

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead,

mercury, and thallium) in Bekaert’s

waste because they were not detected in

the leachate using the appropriate

analytical test methods (see Table 1).

The EPA believes that it is inappropriate

to evaluate nondetectable

concentrations of a constituent of

concern in its modeling efforts if the

nondetectable value was obtained using

the appropriate analytical method. If a

constituent cannot be detected (when

using the appropriate analytical method

with an adequate detection limit), the

EPA assumes that the constituent is not

present and therefore does not present

a threat to human health or the

environment.

TABLE 3.—EPACML: CALCULATED

COMPLIANCE-POINT CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) PETITIONED WASTE

Inorganic constituents

Compliance

point concentrations 1

(mg/l)

Levels of

regulatory

concern 2

(mg/l)

Antimony ....... 0.0036 0.006

Barium ........... 0.014 2.0

Copper .......... 0.13 1.3

Nickel ............ 0.012 0.1

Selenium ....... 0.00096 0.05

Silver ............. 0.002 0.2

Zinc ............... 4.90 10.

1 Using the maximum TCLP leachate level

and based on a DAF of 96 calculated using

the EPACML for an annual volume of 1,250

cubic yards. 2See Docket Report on Health-Based Levels and Solubilities Used in the Evaluation of

Delisting Petitions, December 1994 located in

the RCRA public docket for today’s notice.

The EPA also evaluated the potential

hazard of methyl ethyl ketone, 4-

methylphenol (p-cresol), and

dichloromethane, the only organic

constituents detected in the total

concentrations or TCLP extract of

samples of Bekaert’s petitioned waste.

Process information submitted by

Bekaert demonstrates that organic

constituents are unlikely to be present

in the waste. Furthermore, the organic

analysis submitted indicated only trace

levels of these three constituents. In any

case, the Agency notes that if the total

levels (0.120, < 1.00, 0.008 mg/kg, in

respective order) of these trace

constituents were evaluated using the

EPACML (conservatively assuming the

total concentration of the constituents

would leach), the compliance levels

(.00125, < 0.0104, 0.0000842 mg/l) at

the theoretical compliance point would

still be well below health-based levels

(20, 2, 0.005 mg/l, in respective order).

As reported in Table 1, reactive

cyanide and reactive sulfide were not

detected in Bekaert’s petitioned waste.

The detection limits are less than 0.050

mg/kg and less than 10 mg/kg,

respectively. These detection limit

concentrations are below the EPA’s

interim standards of 250 and 500 ppm,

respectively. See Interim Agency

Thresholds for Toxic Gas Generation,

July 12, 1985, internal Agency

Memorandum in the RCRA public

docket. Therefore, reactive cyanide and

reactive sulfide levels are not of

concern.

Complexed cyanide was identified in

one of the five samples analyzed at a

total concentration of 0.31 mg/kg and at

a leachable (TCLP extract) concentration

of 0.030 mg/1. The leachable amount

found in the one sample of waste is

below the appropriate health-base
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules 32751

number of 0.2 mg/1 (see docket) even

without considering the dilution effects

of the fate and transport of the

constituent. Therefore, since Bekaert

does not use cyanide in any of their

processes and the complexed cyanide

was identified in only one sample at

concentrations below the health-based

concentration, complexed cyanide is not

considered of concern.

The EPA concluded, after reviewing

Bekaert’s processes, that no other

hazardous constituents of concern, other

than those tested for, are likely to be

present or formed as reaction products

or by-products in Bekaert’s waste

proposed for exclusion. In addition, on

the basis of explanations and analytical

data provided by Bekaert, pursuant to

§ 260.22, the EPA concludes that the

waste does not exhibit any of the

characteristics of ignitability,

corrosivity, or reactivity. See § 261.21,

§ 261.22, and § 261.23, respectively.

During the evaluation of Bekaert’s

petition, the EPA also considered the

potential impact of the petitioned waste

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

emission and surface runoff). With

regard to airborne dispersion in

particular, the EPA believes that

exposure to airborne contaminants from

Bekaert’s petitioned waste is unlikely.

The EPA evaluated the potential

hazards resulting from the unlikely

scenario of airborne exposure to

hazardous constituents released from

Bekaert’s waste in an open landfill. The

results of this worst-case analysis

indicated that there is no substantial

present or potential hazard to human

health from airborne exposure to

constituents from Bekaert’s petitioned

waste. A description of the EPA’s

assessment of the potential impact of

Bekaert’s waste, with regard to 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 waste via a

surface water route. The EPA believes

that containment structures at

municipal solid waste landfills can

effectively control surface water run-off.

Subtitle D regulations (see 56 FR 50978,

October 9, 1991) prohibit pollutant

discharges into surface waters.

Furthermore, the concentrations of any

hazardous constituents dissolved in the

runoff will tend to be lower than the

levels in the TCLP leachate analyses

reported in today’s notice, due to the

aggressive acid medium used for

extraction in the TCLP test. The EPA

believes that, in general, leachate

derived from the waste is unlikely to

enter a surface water body directly

without first travelling through the

saturated subsurface zone where further

dilution and attenuation of hazardous

constituents will also occur. Leachable

concentrations provide a direct measure

of the 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. The reported TCLP extraction

data shows that the metals that might be

released from Bekaert’s waste to surface

water would be likely to remain

undissolved or leach in concentrations

that would be below health-based levels

of concern. Finally, any transported

constituents would be further diluted in

the receiving surface water body.

Based on the reasons discussed above,

the EPA believes that contamination of

surface water through run-off from the

waste disposal area is very unlikely.

Nevertheless, the EPA evaluated

potential impacts on surface water if

Bekaert’s waste were released from a

municipal solid waste landfill through

run-off 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 Bekaert’s petitioned waste is not a

substantial present or potential hazard

to human health and the environment

via the surface water exposure pathway.

E. Conclusion

The EPA has reviewed the sampling

procedures used by Bekaert and has

determined that they satisfy the EPA

criteria for collecting representative

samples. The data submitted in support

of the petition demonstrates, after

careful evaluation, that constituents in

Bekaert’s waste are present at the

compliance point below the healthbased levels used in the delisting

decision-making. The EPA believes that

Bekaert has successfully demonstrated

that the petitioned waste is nonhazardous.

The EPA, therefore, proposes to grant

an exclusion to Bekaert Steel

Corporation, located in Rogers,

Arkansas, for the petitioned waste

described in its petition as EPA

Hazardous Waste No. F006. The EPA’s

decision to exclude this waste is based

on descriptions of the process from

which the petitioned waste is derived,

descriptions of Bekaert’s wastewater

treatment process, and characterization

of the petitioned waste. If the proposed

rule is finalized, the petitioned waste

will no longer be subject to regulation

under Parts 262 through 268 and the

permitting standards of Part 270.

If made final, the proposed exclusion

will apply only to 1,250 cubic yards of

petitioned waste generated annually, on

a calendar year basis, through operation

of Bekaert’s wastewater treatment filter

press. The facility would be required to

obtain a new exclusion if either its

manufacturing or treatment processes

are significantly altered such that an

adverse change in waste composition

(for example, significantly higher levels

of hazardous constituents) or increase in

volume occur. Accordingly, the facility

would be required to file a new petition

for the altered waste. Additionally, the

facility must treat waste generated either

in excess of 1,250 cubic yards per year

or generated from changed processes as

hazardous until a new exclusion is

granted.

Although management of the waste

covered by this petition would be

removed from 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. Alternatively, the delisted waste

may be delivered to a facility that

beneficially uses or reuses, or

legitimately recycles or reclaims the

waste, or treats the waste prior to such

beneficial use, reuse, recycling, or

reclamation.

F. Annual Testing

If a final exclusion is granted, the

petitioner will be required to

demonstrate, on an annual basis, that

the characteristics of the petitioned

waste remain as originally described. In

order to confirm that the characteristics

of the waste do not change significantly,

the facility must, on an annual basis,

analyze a representative composite

sample for the constituents listed in

§ 261.24 as well as antimony, copper,

nickel and zinc using the method

specified therein. Sampling and analysis

must be completed by July 1 of each

year. Each year’s analytical results

(including quality control information)

must be compiled, certified according to

260.22(i)(12), maintained on-site for a

minimum of five years, and made

available for inspection upon request by

any employee or representative of EPA

or the State of Arkansas. Failure to

maintain the required records on site

will be considered by EPA, at its

discretion, sufficient basis to revoke the

exclusion to the extent directed by EPA.
32752 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules

The purpose of this testing

requirement is to ensure that the quality

of the petitioned waste remains as

originally described by the petitioner.

The Agency believes that the data

obtained will assist EPA or the State in

determining whether the petitioner’s

manufacturing processes have been

significantly altered, or if the waste is

more variable than originally described

by the petitioner. The Agency also

believes that the annual retesting of the

petitioned waste is not overly

burdensome to the facility and notes

that these data will assist the facility in

complying with § 262.11(c) which

requires generators to determine

whether their wastes are hazardous, as

defined by the Toxicity Characteristic

(see 40 CFR 261.24).

III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion

This proposed exclusion, if

promulgated, would be issued under the

Federal (RCRA) delisting program.

States, however, are allowed to impose

their own, non-RCRA regulatory

requirements that are more stringent

than EPA’s, pursuant to section 3009 of

RCRA. These more stringent

requirements may include a provision

which prohibits a Federally-issued

exclusion from taking effect in the State.

Since a petitioner’s waste may be

regulated under a dual system (both

Federal (RCRA) and State (non-RCRA)

programs), petitioners are urged to

contact their State regulatory authorities

to determine the current status of their

wastes under State law.

Furthermore, some States are

authorized to administer a delisting

program in lieu of the Federal program,

i.e., to make their own delisting

decisions. Therefore, this proposed

exclusion, if promulgated, would not

apply in those authorized States. If the

petitioned waste will be transported to

any State with delisting authorization,

Bekaert must obtain delisting

authorization from that State before the

waste may be managed as nonhazardous

in that State.

IV. Effective Date

This rule, if made final, will 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 six-month deadline is not

necessary to achieve the purpose of

Section 3010, the 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, pursuant

to 5 U.S.C.§ 553(d).

V. Regulatory Impact

Under Executive Order 12866, the

EPA must conduct an ‘‘assessment of

the potential costs and benefits’’ for all

‘‘significant’’ regulatory actions. This

proposal to grant an exclusion is not

significant, since its effect, if

promulgated, would be to reduce the

overall costs and economic impact of

the EPA’s hazardous waste management

regulations. This reduction would be

achieved by excluding waste generated

at a specific facility from the EPA’s lists

of hazardous wastes, thereby enabling

this facility to treat its waste as nonhazardous. There is no additional

impact due to today’s rule. Therefore,

this proposal would not be a significant

regulation, and no cost/benefit

assessment is required. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has also

exempted this rule from the requirement

for OMB review under Section (6) of

Executive Order 12866.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601–612, whenever an

agency is required to publish a general

notice of rulemaking for any proposed

or final rule, it must prepare and make

available for public comment a

regulatory flexibility analysis that

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 any small

entities.

This rule, if promulgated, will not

have any adverse economic impact on

any small entities since its effect would

be to reduce the overall costs of the

EPA’s hazardous waste regulations and

would be limited to one facility.

Accordingly, I hereby certify that this

proposed regulation, if promulgated,

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. This regulation, therefore, does

not require a regulatory flexibility

analysis.

VII. 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.

VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),

Public Law 104–4, which was signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA

generally must prepare a written

statement for rules with Federal

mandates that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, and tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year. When such a statement

is required for EPA rules, under section

205 of the UMRA, the EPA must

identify and consider alternatives,

including the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The EPA must select that alternative,

unless the Administrator explains in the

final rule why it was not selected or it

is inconsistent with law. Before the 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 the 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous

waste, Recycling, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules 32753

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

6921(f).

Dated: June 11, 1996.

Jane N. Saginaw,

Regional Administrator.

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 Table 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

TABLE 2.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description

* * * * * * *

Bekaert Steel Corporation.Rogers, Arkansas ....... Wastewater treatment sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006) generated from electroplating operations (at a maximum annual rate of 1,250 cubic yards to be measured on a calendar year basis) after [insert publication date of the final rule]. In order to confirm that the

characteristics of the waste do not change significantly, the facility must, on an annual

basis, before July 1 of each year, analyze a representative composite sample for the constituents listed in 261.24 as well as antimony, copper, nickel, and zinc using the method

specified therein. The annual analytical results, including quality control information, must

be compiled, certified according to § 260.22(i)(12) of this chapter, maintained on site for a

minimum of five years, and made available for inspection upon request of any employee or

representative of EPA or the State of Arkansas. Failure to maintain the required documents on site will be considered by EPA, at its discretion, sufficient basis to revoke the exclusion to the extent directed by EPA.

Notification Requirements:

Bekaert Steel Corporation 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.

* * * * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–15884 Filed 6–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 261

[SW–FRL–5525–2]

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for

comment.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is proposing to grant a

petition to the Texas Eastman Division

of Eastman Chemical Company (Texas

Eastman) to exclude (or ‘‘delist’’),

certain solid wastes generated at its

facility from the lists of hazardous

wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.24,

261.31, 261.32 and 261.33 (hereinafter

all sectional references are to 40 CFR

unless otherwise indicated). This

petition was submitted under 40 CFR

260.20, which allows any person to

petition the Administrator to modify or

revoke any provision of 40 CFR Parts

260 through 266, 268 and 273, and

under 40 CFR 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 conditionally

excluded from the requirements of

hazardous waste regulations under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA).

DATES: The EPA is requesting public

comments on this proposed decision.

Comments will be accepted until

August 9, 1996. 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 Jane N. Saginaw, Regional

Administrator, whose address appears

below, by July 10, 1996. The request

must contain the information prescribed

in 40 CFR 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Send three copies of your

comments. Two copies should be sent to

William Gallagher, Delisting Program,

Multimedia Planning and Permitting

Division (6PD-O), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 6, 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–96–TXDEL–

TXEASTMAN.’’

Requests for a hearing should be

addressed to the Regional

Administrator, Region 6, Environmental

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas 75202.

The RCRA regulatory docket for this

proposed rule is located at the Region 6,

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202 and

is available for viewing in the EPA

library on the 12th floor from 8:30 a.m.

to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding Federal holidays. Call (214)

665–6444 for appointments. The docket

may also be viewed at the Texas Natural

Resource Conservation Commission,

12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas

78753. The public may copy material

from any regulatory docket at no cost for

the first 100 pages, and at $0.15 per page

for additional copies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: For

technical information concerning this

notice, contact Michelle Peace, Delisting

Program (6PD-O), Region 6,

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202, (214)

665–7430.