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.
32754 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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 § 261.24, § 261.31, § 261.32

and § 261.33. 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 described in these

regulations generally is hazardous, a

specific waste from an individual

facility meeting the listing description

may not be hazardous. Therefore,

§ 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 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 that are ‘‘delisted’’

have been evaluated to decide whether

they exhibit any of the characteristics of

hazardous waste, generators remain

obligated under RCRA to determine

whether their waste remains nonhazardous 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 EPA 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

Texas Eastman’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 Texas Eastman’s petitioned

waste, 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 waste after disposal and

to determine the potential impact of the

disposal of Texas Eastman’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

health-based levels 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 waste in a landfill, and that

a reasonable worst-case scenario is

appropriate when evaluating whether a

waste should be relieved of the

protective management constraints of

RCRA Subtitle C. The use of 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 managed onsite to determine whether hazardous

constituents have migrated to the

underlying groundwater. 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules 32755

monitoring data was applicable to the

evaluation of the petitioned waste.

Texas Eastman’s petitioned waste is

transported to an on-site hazardous

waste landfill that has been designed to

meet the RCRA minimum technology

requirements and has groundwater

monitoring wells to monitor the landfill.

The EPA believes that data collected

from Texas Eastman’s groundwater

monitoring system provides a clear

measure of whether the landfill has

adversely impacted groundwater quality

at the Texas Eastman site. The data

provided from the groundwater

monitoring system and the landfill

leachate seem to indicate that no

adverse impact on the groundwater has

occurred and that the leachate collected

from the system is currently below

health based limits. The potential

impact of these wastes on the

groundwater will also be predicted

through the application of the EPACML,

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

Eastman Chemical Company—Texas

Eastman Division, Longview, Texas,

75607.

A. Petition for Exclusion

Eastman Chemical Company —Texas

Eastman Division (Texas Eastman),

located in Longview, Texas is involved

in the manufacturing of organic

chemicals and plastics. Texas Eastman

petitioned the EPA for a conditional

exclusion of approximately 7,000 cubic

yards of Fluidized Bed Incinerator (FBI)

ash generated per calendar year. The

FBI ash, presently disposed of in an onsite hazardous waste landfill, is

generated from the incineration of

sludges from its wastewater treatment

plant. The FBI ash is listed for 56 EPA

Hazardous Waste Numbers due to the

‘‘derived-from’’ and mixture rules. The

waste is listed as D001, D003, D018,

D019, D021, D022, D027, D028, D029,

D030, D032, D033, D034, D035, D036,

D038, D039, D040, F001, F003, F005,

K009, K010, U001, U002, U003, U019,

U028, U031, U037, U044, U056, U069,

U070, U107, U108, U112, U113, U115,

U117, U122, U140, U147, U151, U154,

U159, U161, U169, U190, U196, U211,

U213, U226, U239, and U359. The listed

constituents of concern for these EPA

Hazardous Waste Numbers are shown in

Table 1 (See, Part 261, Appendix VII).

TABLE 1.—HAZARDOUS WASTE CODES ASSOCIATED WITH WASTEWATER STREAMS

Waste code Basis for characteristic/listing

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

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

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

D019 .................................................................... Carbon Tetrachloride.

D021 .................................................................... Chlorobenzene.

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

D027 .................................................................... 1,4-Dichlorobenzene.

D028 .................................................................... 1,2-Dichloroethane.

D029 .................................................................... 1,1-Dichloroethylene.

D030 .................................................................... 2,4-Dinitrotoluene.

D032 .................................................................... Hexachlorobenzene.

D033 .................................................................... Hexachlorobutadiene.

D034 .................................................................... Hexachloroethane.

D035 .................................................................... Methyl ethyl ketone.

D036 .................................................................... Nitrobenzene.

D038 .................................................................... Pyridine.

D039 .................................................................... Tetrachloroethylene.

D040 .................................................................... Trichloroethylene

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

F002 .................................................................... Tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride, Trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-

trichloroethane, chlorobenzene, 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2 trichlorofluoroethane, orthodichlorobenzene, trichlorofluoromethane.

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

2-nitropropane.

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

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

chloroacetaldehyde.

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

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

U003 .................................................................... Acetonitrile.

U019 .................................................................... Benzene.

U028 .................................................................... Benzenetrichloride.

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

U037 .................................................................... Chlorobenzene.

U044 .................................................................... Chloroform.

U056 .................................................................... Cyclohexane.

U069 .................................................................... Dibutyl phthlate.

U070 .................................................................... o-Dichlorobenzene.

U107 .................................................................... Di-n-octyl-phthlate.

U108 .................................................................... 1,4-Diethyleneoxide.

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

U113 .................................................................... Ethyl acrylate.

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

U117 .................................................................... Ethyl ether.
32756 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.—HAZARDOUS WASTE CODES ASSOCIATED WITH WASTEWATER STREAMS—Continued

Waste code Basis for characteristic/listing

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

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

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

U151 .................................................................... Mercury.

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

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

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

U169 .................................................................... Nitrobenzene.

U190 .................................................................... Phthalic anhydride.

U196 .................................................................... Pyridine.

U211 .................................................................... Carbon Tetrachloride.

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

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

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

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

Texas Eastman petitioned the EPA to

exclude this annual volume of FBI ash

because it does not believe that the

waste meets the criteria for which it was

listed. Texas Eastman 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 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 Texas Eastman’s petition.

B. Background

On December 29, 1994, Texas

Eastman petitioned the EPA to exclude,

from the lists of hazardous wastes

contained in 40 CFR § 261.31 and

§ 261.32, an annual volume of

incinerator ash generated from

incineration of sludge from its

wastewater treatment plant.

Specifically, in its petition, Texas

Eastman requested that the EPA grant a

standard exclusion for 7,000 cubic yards

of incinerator ash generated per

calendar year.

In support of its petition, Texas

Eastman submitted: (1) descriptions of

its wastewater treatment processes and

the incineration activities associated

with the petitioned waste; (2) results

from total constituent analyses for the

Toxicity Characteristic (TC) metals

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

antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium,

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper,

lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver,

thallium, tin, vanadium, and zinc from

representative samples of the waste; (3)

results from the Toxicity Characteristic

Leaching Procedure (TCLP), (SW–846

Method 1311) for the TC metals

antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium,

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper,

lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver,

thallium, tin, vanadium, and zinc from

representative samples of the waste; (4)

results from the Multiple Extraction

Procedure (MEP), (SW–846 Method

1330) for antimony, arsenic, barium,

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt,

copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium,

silver, thallium, tin, vanadium, and zinc

from representative samples of the

waste; (5) test results from the total

constituent analyses for dioxins/furans

from representative samples of the

waste; (6) results from total oil and

grease analyses from representative

samples of the waste; (7) test results and

information regarding the hazardous

characteristics of ignitability,

corrosivity, and reactivity; (8) results

from total constituent and TCLP

analyses for 40 CFR Part 264 Appendix

IX volatile and semi-volatile organic

compounds from representative samples

of the waste; and (9) results from the

Land Disposal Restriction Analysis

performed on the untreated ash. Texas

Eastman also provided total constituent

analyses and for the biological treatment

sludge, scrubber water blowdown,

influent waste water and waste liquid

fuel associated with the generation of

the FBI ash. To meet the Land Disposal

Restriction’s interim treatment standard

for nickel, Texas Eastman had to

stabilize the nickel in the FBI ash by

adding a polymer. Since the universal

treatment standards were finalized in

1995, and designated the TCLP

treatment standard for nickel as 5.0 mg/

l, Texas Eastman no longer has to add

the polymer to the ash.

Texas Eastman is an active organic

chemical and plastics manufacturing

plant. Current facility operations,

including wastewater treatment, are not

significantly different from the

operations occurring at this facility for

the last 10 years. There are two major

raw materials (propane and ethane)

used at the Texas Eastman facility. Most

of the products from this facility are in

similar product groupings, therefore the

wastewater resulting from the

manufacturing of these products is fairly

well defined. Texas Eastman believes

that several factors dampen the spatial

and temporal variability that may occur

in the wastewater: (1) the majority of

wastewater volume generated at the

Texas Eastman facility is from low

strength sources and the high strength

sources generated are from a few low

volume sources; (2) the daily volume of

wastewater flow is such that very large

mass loading is necessary to influence

the concentrations of a constituent

reaching the wastewater treatment plant

(WWTP); (3) the hydraulic retention

time of 17 days within the WWTP is

very high as well as the corresponding

sludge age which minimizes the chance

of a shock load influencing the resulting

feed to the incinerator; (4) the collection

system for the WWTP is equipped with

‘‘shock’’ load sensors and a monitoring

system which prevent large mass

loadings from being introduced into the

WWTP; (5) the WWTP is equipped with

emergency storage tanks capable of

holding approximately 20 hours of

influent; and (6) the liquid fuels used as

supplemental fuels in the incinerator

are relatively uniform in characteristics

and constituents.

During the various production

processes, wastewaters are generated

and flow into a centralized collection

system. All wastewaters are routed to

the wastewater treatment plant for

treatment, via biological degradation,

and subsequent discharge into receiving

waters. To facilitate growth of new

microorganisms, a portion of the

biological mass (i.e., sludge) is removed

from the wastewater treatment system.

The biological sludge is routed to a

storage tank and then to the FBI for

thermal treatment. The FBI is a
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules 32757

permitted incinerator operated at a

temperature of 1550°F. The total heat

content of all feeds introduced into the

FBI, including the waste feeds and

auxiliary fuels are not permitted to

exceed 42 million BTU/hr. After

incineration, the flue gases are routed

through a heat exchanger and a venturi

scrubber. A mixture of ash solids and

scrubber water is sent to the ash

thickener. This mixture is dewatered by

passing it through a rotary vacuum

filter. After being scraped from the filter,

the ash drops into a dumpster where it

is stored prior to disposal. The resulting

FBI ash generated annually is the

subject of Texas Eastman’s delisting

petition.

Texas Eastman developed a list of

constituents of concern from comparing

a list of the wastes generated at the plant

with the list of constituents that appear

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. It

was decided due to the availability of

test methods and process knowledge,

that Texas Eastman would analyze its

waste for those constituents found in 40

CFR § 264, Appendix IX, except for

pesticides, herbicides, and

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

The sampling and analysis of the FBI

ash took place in April and May 1994.

The sampling program consisted of two

individual test runs which together

spanned 42 days. During the two test

runs, two extreme FBI operating

conditions (high sludge and high

liquids) were represented in addition to

normal operations. During one worst

case test condition, biological treatment

sludge was fed to the FBI at

approximately 12,000 pounds per hour

(lbs/hr), and waste liquid fuels were fed

to the FBI at approximately 540 lbs/hr.

During the other worst case test

condition, waste liquid fuels were fed to

the FBI at approximately the maximum

feed rate of 684 lbs/hr and biological

treatment sludge was fed at

approximately 8,000 lbs/hr. Each test

condition consisted of one run. The

tests for extreme conditions (high sludge

or high liquids) lasted two days due to

the limited availability to produce

sufficient sludge volume for a longer

duration test. The tests for normal

operations lasted five days. The FBI was

operated continuously at the designated

test condition throughout the test

period. This allowed for the collection

of samples of FBI ash during each test,

yielding a total of 10 sets of FBI ash data

from the eight tests: 8 from the

individual test conditions, 1 duplicate,

and 1 from the untreated ash. Samples

of four streams (the treated and

untreated FBI ash, biological treatment

sludge, and waste liquid fuels) were

collected at 6-hour intervals during each

of the eight tests. With the exception of

VOA vials collected for volatiles

analysis, the 6-hour interval samples of

each stream collected during each run

were composited at the Texas Eastman

facility and shipped to the analytical

laboratories. The composite samples

were analyzed for the total

concentrations (i.e., mass of a particular

constituent per mass of waste) of the

eight TCLP metals, antimony, beryllium,

cobalt, copper, nickel, thallium, tin,

vanadium, and zinc, selected volatile

and semi-volatile organic constituents,

dioxins/furans, and oil and grease

content. The samples were also

analyzed to determine whether the

waste exhibited the reactive properties,

including analysis for total constituent

concentrations of cyanide, sulfide,

reactive cyanide, and reactive sulfide.

These samples were also analyzed for

TCLP concentrations (i.e., mass of a

particular constituent per unit volume

of extract) of the eight TC metals,

antimony, beryllium, cobalt, copper,

nickel, thallium, tin, vanadium, zinc,

and selected volatile and semi-volatile

organic constituents.

Texas Eastman has also collected

samples of the treated and untreated ash

to maintain compliance with the Land

Disposal Restrictions. For compliance

with LDR, the untreated ash is analyzed

for total constituents concentrations of a

select group of volatile and semivolatile

organics expected to be present in the

ash and the eight TCLP metals, nickel

and vanadium. LDR leachate results for

the treated ash were provided in the

1994 petition. Since, treatment of the

ash is no longer necessary, results from

four samples of the untreated ash have

been provided to support this petition.

The four samples were collected for four

consecutive months from December

1995–March 1996.

C. Agency Analysis

Texas Eastman used SW–846 Methods

7041, 7060, 7421, 7471, 7740, and 7841

to quantify the total constituent

concentrations of antimony, arsenic,

lead, mercury, selenium, and thallium;

and SW–846 Method 6010 to quantify

total constituent concentrations of

barium, beryllium, cadmium,

chromium, nickel, silver, vanadium,

and zinc in the samples of FBI ash

(treated and untreated), sludge,and

liquid fuels. Texas Eastman used SW–

846 Methods 9010 to quantify the total

constituent concentrations of cyanide

for these samples. Texas Eastman used

9030 to quantify the total constituent

concentrations of sulfide.

Using method M–413.2 from the

‘‘Methods for Chemical Analysis of

Water and Wastes’’, EPA–600/4–79–020,

March 1983, Texas Eastman determined

that oil and grease content was not

detected in the untreated ash.

Texas Eastman used SW–846 Method

1311 (TCLP)/Method 6010 to quantify

the leachable concentrations of the eight

TC metals, antimony, beryllium, copper,

cobalt, nickel, vanadium, and zinc in

the ash samples. SW–846 Method 7471

was used for mercury analyses of the

extracts from the samples. Texas

Eastman used SW–846 Method 1311

/Method 9010 to quantify leachable

cyanide concentrations in the samples.

The samples taken for the LDR program

used SW–846 Method 1311 (TCLP)/

Method 6010 to quantify the TC metals

present in the untreated ash. Method

8290 was used to quantify the total

concentrations of dioxin and furans.

The analyses for reactive cyanide and

reactive sulfide (SW–846 Methods

7.3.3.2 and 7.3.4.2, respectively) were

provided to verify that the untreated ash

was not characteristic. The ash does not

meet the definitions of ignitability and

corrosivity provided in 40 CFR § 261.21

(a)(2) and § 261.22.

Table 1 presents the maximum total

constituent and leachate concentrations

for the eight TC metals, antimony,

beryllium, cyanide, nickel, vanadium,

and zinc for the composite samples of

the petitioned waste. Table 1 also

presents the maximum reactive cyanide

and reactive sulfide concentrations.

The detection limits presented in

Table 1 represent the lowest

concentrations quantifiable by Texas

Eastman when using the appropriate

SW–846 or Agency-approved analytical

methods to analyze the untreated ash.

(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).
32758 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.—MAXIMUM TOTAL CONSTITUENT AND LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) 1 UNTREATED FBI ASH

Inorganic constituents

Total constituent analysesLeachate analyses

TCLP MEP

Antimony ............................................................................................................................................. 12.5 0.0217 0.0092

Arsenic ................................................................................................................................................ 1.49 <0.000647 0.0138

Barium ................................................................................................................................................ 302 0.346 0.025

Beryllium ............................................................................................................................................. 0.4203 <0.00051 <0.00051

Cadmium ............................................................................................................................................ 1.23 <0.00386 0.0140

Chromium (total) ................................................................................................................................. 45.4 <0.00524 0.0171

Cobalt ................................................................................................................................................. 46.7 0.0350 0.0141

Copper ................................................................................................................................................ 198 0.0783 0.00989

Lead .................................................................................................................................................... 41.3 <0.0022 <0.0022

Mercury ............................................................................................................................................... < 0.0125 0.0002 <0.00003

Nickel .................................................................................................................................................. 837 0.411 0.176

Selenium ............................................................................................................................................. 1.30 <0.00708 0.00399

Silver ................................................................................................................................................... 10.4 0.00601 <0.00519

Thallium .............................................................................................................................................. < 0.273 <0.00173 <0.00185

Tin ....................................................................................................................................................... 4.16 <0.0145 0.0161

Vanadium ........................................................................................................................................... 63.1 0.0397 0.0687

Zinc ..................................................................................................................................................... 1930 0.568 0.345

Hydrogen Cyanide .............................................................................................................................. < 0.25

Hydrogen Sulfide ................................................................................................................................ < 24.8

Oil and Grease ................................................................................................................................... <126

< 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 necessarily represent the

specific levels found in one sample.

Texas Eastman used SW–846 Methods

8240 and 8270 to quantify the total

constituent concentrations of 50 volatile

and 115 semivolatile organic

compounds, respectively, in the ash.

This suite of constituents included all of

the nonpesticide organic constituents

listed in § 261.24. Also, Texas Eastman

used SW–846 Methods 8240 and 8270

to quantify the leachable concentrations

of 50 volatile and 115 semi-volatile

organic compounds, respectively, in the

untreated ash samples, following

extraction by SW–846 Method 1311

(TCLP). This suite of constituents

included all of the organic constituents

listed in § 261.24.

In addition to analyzing the FBI ash

for TC metals, samples of the ash were

analyzed for metals using the modified

multiple extraction procedure (MEP)

(SW–846, Method 1330). The MEP

simulates the long-term effects of

leaching in a landfill and is used to

determine the overall effectiveness of a

stabilization process. During the

sampling program, a sample of

untreated ash was analyzed using the

MEP test to determine the long-term

leachability of metals. Table 2 presents

the maximum total and leachate

concentrations of all detected organic

constituents in Texas Eastman’s waste

and waste extract samples. Lastly, on

the basis of explanations and analytical

data provided by Texas Eastman, none

of the analyzed samples exhibited the

characteristics of ignitability,

corrosivity, or reactivity. See, § 261.21,

§ 261.22 and § 261.23.

TABLE 2.—MAXIMUM TOTAL CONSTITUENT AND LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) 1 UNTREATED FBI ASH

Organic constituents

Total constituent analyses

TCLP leachate analyses

Acetone ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.021 0.059

Benzo(a)pyrene ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.0217 < 0.00441

Carbon Disulfide ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.0526 0.0151

Benzo(g,h,i) perylene ................................................................................................................................................... 0.0444 < 0.00626

Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene .............................................................................................................................................. 0.0188 < 0.0049

Methylene Chloride ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.077 < 0.0185

< 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 necessarily represent the

specific levels found in one sample.

Texas Eastman submitted a signed

certification stating that the maximum

annual generation rate of the FBI ash

will be 7,000 cubic yards of waste. The

EPA reviews a petitioner’s estimates

and, on occasion, has requested a

petitioner to reevaluate estimated waste

volume. The EPA accepted Texas

Eastman’s certified estimate of 7,000

cubic yards of FBI ash.

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules 32759

D. Agency Evaluation

The EPA considered the

appropriateness of alternative waste

management scenarios for Texas

Eastman’s FBI ash 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 Texas Eastman’s petitioned

waste using the modified EPA

Composite Model for Landfills

(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 threedimensional 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 Texas

Eastman’s petitioned waste (FBI

untreated ash).

For the evaluation of Texas Eastman’s

petitioned waste, the EPA used the

EPACML to evaluate the mobility of the

hazardous inorganic constituents

detected in the extract of samples of

Texas Eastman’s FBI untreated ash.

DAFs are currently calculated assuming

an ongoing process generates wastes for

20 years. The DAF for the waste volume

of 7,000 cubic yards/year assuming 20

years of generation is 45. The EPA’s

evaluation, using a DAF of 45,

maximum waste volume estimate of

7,000 cubic yards and the maximum

reported TCLP or MEP 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.

TABLE 3.—EPACML: CALCULATED COMPLIANCE-POINT CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) UNTREATED FBI ASH

Inorganic constituents

Compliance

point concentrations 1

(mg/l)

Levels of

regulatory

concern 2

(mg/l)

Antimony ...................................................................................................................................................................... 0.00048 0.006

Arsenic ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.00031 0.05

Barium .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.00769 2.0

Cadmium ...................................................................................................................................................................... 0.00031 0.005

Chromium ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0.00038 0.1

Cobalt ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0.00078 2.1

Copper .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.00174 1.3

Mercury ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.0002 0.001

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................................ 0.00913 0.1

Selenium ...................................................................................................................................................................... 0.00009 0.20

Silver ............................................................................................................................................................................ 0.00013 0.2

Tin ................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.00036 21.0

Vanadium ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0.00153 0.3

Zinc ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.01262 10.0

1 Using the maximum TCLP leachate level and based on a DAF of 45 calculated using the EPACML for a maximum volume generated annually of 7,000 cubic yards. 2 See, ‘‘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.

The maximum reported or calculated

leachate concentrations of arsenic,

antimony, barium, cadmium,

chromium, copper, nickel, mercury,

selenium, silver, vanadium, and zinc in

the FBI ash yielded compliance point

concentrations well below the healthbased levels used in delisting decisionmaking. The EPA did not evaluate the

mobility of the remaining inorganic

constituents (i.e., beryllium, lead, and

thallium) from Texas Eastman’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 non-detectable concentrations

of a constituent of concern in its

modeling efforts if the non-detectable

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.

The EPA also evaluated the potential

hazards of acetone and carbon disulfide,

the organic constituents detected in the

TCLP extract of samples of Texas

Eastman’s FBI ash. In particular, were

these leachate concentrations evaluated

using the EPACML, the calculated

compliance-point concentration would

be 0.00131 ppm and 0.00034 ppm

respectively; these values are

significantly below the respective health

based values of 4.

As reported in Table 1, the

concentrations of reactive cyanide and

sulfide were not detected in Texas

Eastman’s untreated FBI ash. These

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

sulfide levels are not of concern.

The EPA concluded, after reviewing

Texas Eastman’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 Texas Eastman’s

waste. In addition, on the basis of

explanations and analytical data

provided by Texas Eastman, pursuant to

§ 260.22, the EPA concludes that the

waste does not exhibit any of the
32760 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules

characteristics of ignitability,

corrosivity, or reactivity. See, § 261.21,

§ 261.22, and § 261.23, respectively.

During the evaluation of Texas

Eastman’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 Texas Eastman’s

petitioned waste is unlikely. The EPA

evaluated the potential hazards

resulting from the unlikely scenario of

airborne exposure to hazardous

constituents released from Texas

Eastman’s waste in an open landfill. The

results of this worst-case analysis

indicated that there is no substantial

present or potential hazard to human

health from airborne exposure to

constituents from Texas Eastman’s FBI

ash. A description of the EPA’s

assessment of the potential impact of

Texas Eastman’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,

as the Subtitle D regulations (See, 56 FR

50978, October 9, 1991) prohibit

pollutant discharges into surface waters.

Furthermore, the concentrations of any

hazardous constituents dissolved in the

runoff will tend to be lower than the

levels in the TCLP or MEP leachate

analyses reported in today’s notice, due

to the aggressive acid medium used for

extraction in the TCLP and MEP tests.

The EPA believes that, in general,

leachate derived from the waste is

unlikely to enter a surface water body

directly without first traveling 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 and MEP extraction

data show that the metals in Texas

Eastman’s FBI ash that might be

released from Texas Eastman’s waste to

surface water would be likely to remain

undissolved or leach in concentrations

that would be below the 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,

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

Texas Eastman’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 Texas

Eastman’s untreated FBI ash is not a

substantial present or potential hazard

to human health and the environment

via the surface water exposure pathway.

E. Conclusion

The EPA believes that the

descriptions of the Texas Eastman

incineration process and analytical

characterizations, in conjunction with

the proposed verification testing

requirements (as discussed later in this

notice), provide a reasonable basis to

grant Texas Eastman’s petition for a

conditional exclusion of the untreated

FBI ash. The EPA believes that the lack

of variability between the treated and

untreated ash samples collected from

the characterization of the ash in 1994

and the LDR data for the untreated ash

adequately represent the variations in

the raw materials and processing. The

EPA believes that the data submitted in

support of the petition show that Texas

Eastman’s incineration process can

render the sludge from the waste water

treatment system non-hazardous. The

EPA has reviewed the sampling

procedures used by Texas Eastman and

has determined that they satisfy EPA

criteria for collecting representative

samples of the variations in constituent

concentrations of the FBI ash. The data

submitted in support of the petition

show that constituents in Texas

Eastman’s waste are presently below the

health-based levels used in the delisting

decision-making. The EPA believes that

Texas Eastman has successfully

demonstrated that the untreated FBI ash

is non-hazardous.

The EPA, therefore, proposes to grant

a conditional exclusion to Texas

Eastman, located in Longview, Texas,

for the untreated FBI ash described in

its petition. The EPA’s decision to

exclude this waste is based on

descriptions of the incineration

activities associated with the petitioned

waste and characterization of the FBI

ash. 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.

F. Verification Testing Conditions

1. Delisting Levels: All leachable

concentrations for those metals must not

exceed the following levels (ppm).

Metal concentrations must be measured

in the waste leachate by the method

specified in 40 CFR Part 261.24.

(A) Inorganic Constituents

Antimony—0.27; Arsenic—2.25;

Barium—90.0; Beryllium—0.0009;

Cadmium—0.225; Chromium—4.5;

Cobalt—94.5; Copper—58.5; Lead—

0.675; Mercury—0.045; Nickel—4.5;

Selenium—1.0; Silver—5.0;

Thallium—0.135; Tin—945.0;

Vanadium—13.5; Zinc—450.0

(B) Organic Constituents

Acenaphthene—90.0

Acetone—180.0

Benzene—0.135

Benzo(a)anthracene—0.00347

Benzo(a)pyrene—0.00045

Benzo(b) fluoranthene—0.00320

Bis(2 ethylhexyl) phthalate—0.27

Butylbenzyl phthalate—315.0

Chloroform—0.45

Chlorobenzene—31.5

Carbon Disulfide—180.0

Chrysene—0.1215

1,2–Dichlorobenzene—135.0

1,4–Dichlorobenzene—0.18

Di-n-butyl phthalate—180.0

Di-n-octyl phthalate—35.0

1,4 Dioxane—0.36

Ethyl Acetate—1350.0

Ethyl Ether—315.0

Ethylbenzene—180.0

Flouranthene—45.0

Fluorene—45.0

1–Butanol—180.0

Methyl Ethyl Ketone—200.0

Methylene Chloride—0.45

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone—90.0

Naphthalene—45.0

Pyrene—45.0

Toluene—315.0

Xylenes—3150.0

This paragraph provides the levels of

constituents for which Texas Eastman

must test the leachate from the FBI ash,

below which the ash would be

considered non-hazardous. The EPA

selected the set of inorganic constituents

specified after reviewing information

about the composition of the waste,

descriptions of Texas Eastman’s

treatment process, previous test data

provided for the untreated ash and the

health-based levels used in delisting

decision-making.

The EPA established the proposed

delisting levels for this paragraph by
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules 32761

back-calculating the maximum

allowable leachate concentrations

(MALs) from the health-based levels

(HBLs) for the constituents of concern

using the EPACML chemical-specific

DAFs of 45 (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: Texas

Eastman must store in accordance with its

RCRA permit, or continue to dispose of as

hazardous all FBI ash generated until the

Initial and Subsequent Verification Testing

described in Paragraph 4 and 5 below is

completed and valid analyses demonstrate

that all Verification Testing Conditions are

satisfied. After completion of Initial and

Subsequent Verification Testing, if the levels

of constituents measured in the samples of

the FBI ash do not exceed the levels set forth

in Paragraph 1 above, and written

notification is given by EPA, then the waste

is non-hazardous and may be managed and

disposed of in accordance with all applicable

solid waste regulations.

The purpose of this paragraph is to

ensure that ash which contains

hazardous levels of inorganic and

organic constituents are managed and

disposed of in accordance with Subtitle

C of RCRA. Holding the waste until

characterization is complete will protect

against improper handling of hazardous

material. 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 incinerator ash.

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 described in Paragraph 4

below, Texas Eastman may replace the

testing required in Paragraph 4 with the

testing required in Paragraph 5 below. Texas

Eastman must, however, continue to test as

specified in Paragraph 4 until notified by

EPA in writing that testing in Paragraph 4

may be replaced by the testing described in

Paragraph 5.

4. Initial Verification Testing: During the

first 40 operating days of the FBI incinerator

after the final exclusion is granted, Texas

Eastman must collect and analyze daily

composites of the FBI ash. Daily composites

must be composed of representative grab

samples collected every 6 hours during each

24-hour FBI operating cycle. The FBI ash

must be analyzed, prior to disposal of the

ash, for all constituents listed in Paragraph 1.

Texas Eastman must report the operational

and analytical test data, including quality

control information, obtained during this

initial period no later than 90 days after the

incineration of the wastewater treatment

sludge.

The EPA believes that an initial

period of 40 days is sufficient for a

facility to collect sufficient data to verify

that the data provided for the untreated

ash in the 1994 petition and LDR

information is representative of the ash

to be delisted.

5. Subsequent Verification Testing:

Following the completion of the Initial

Verification Testing, Texas Eastman may

request to monitor operating conditions and

analyze samples representative of each

quarter of operation during the first year of

ash generation. The samples must represent

the untreated ash generated over one quarter.

Following written notification from EPA,

Texas Eastman may begin the quarterly

testing described in this Paragraph.

The EPA believes that the

concentrations of the constituents of

concerns in the FBI ash may vary

somewhat over time. As a result, in

order to ensure that Texas Eastman’s

treatment process can effectively handle

any variation in constituent

concentrations in the incinerator ash,

the EPA is proposing a subsequent

verification testing condition. The

proposed subsequent testing would

verify that the FBI is operated in a

manner similar to its operation during

the initial verification testing and that

the untreated incinerator ash does not

exhibit unacceptable levels of toxic

constituents. Therefore, the EPA is

proposing to require Texas Eastman to

analyze representative samples of the

incinerator ash on an quarterly basis

during the first year of waste generation.

If the EPA determines that the data from

the initial verification period

demonstrates that the incineration

process is effective, Texas Eastman may

request that EPA allow it to perform

verification testing on a quarterly basis.

If approved in writing by EPA, then

Texas Eastman may begin verification

testing quarterly.

6. Termination of Organic Testing: Texas

Eastman must continue testing as required

under Paragraph 5 for organic constituents

specified in Paragraph 1 until the analyses

submitted under Paragraph 5 show a

minimum of two consecutive quarterly

samples below the delisting levels in

Paragraph 1. Texas Eastman may then request

that quarterly organic testing be terminated.

After EPA notifies Texas Eastman in writing

it may terminate quarterly organic testing.

7. Annual Testing: Following termination

of quarterly testing under either Paragraphs

5 or 6, Texas Eastman must continue to test

a representative composite sample for all

constituents listed in Paragraph 1 (including

organics) on an annual basis (no later than

twelve months after the date that the final

exclusion is effective).

The EPA is proposing to terminate the

subsequent testing conditions for

organics as allowed in Paragraph 6 after

Texas Eastman has demonstrated the

delisting levels for the untreated ash are

consistently met. In order to confirm

that the characteristics of the waste do

not change significantly over time,

Texas Eastman must continue to analyze

a representative sample of the untreated

FBI ash for organic constituents on an

annual basis (no later than twelve

months after the date that the final

exclusion is effective). The Fluidized

Bed Incinerator as described in the

petition has demonstrated its

effectiveness in removing organic

constituents from solid matrices, but not

inorganic constituents. Therefore,

Paragraph 1 (A), which requires Texas

Eastman to test for the specified

inorganic constituents of concern that

may not be treated by this process, is

not subject to the termination provision

in Paragraph 6.

8. Changes in Operating Conditions: If

Texas Eastman significantly changes the

incineration process described in its petition

or implements any new manufacturing or

production process(es) which generate(s) the

ash and which may or could affect the

composition or type of waste generated

established under Paragraph 3 (by illustration

{but not limitation}, use of stabilization

reagents or operating conditions of the

fluidized bed incinerator), Texas Eastman

must notify the EPA in writing and may no

longer handle the wastes generated from the

new process as non-hazardous until the

wastes meet the delisting levels set in

Paragraph 1 and it has received written

approval to do so from EPA.

Paragraph 8 would allow Texas

Eastman the flexibility of modifying its

processes (e.g., use of new treatment

reagents or change in operating

conditions) to improve its treatment

process. However, Texas Eastman must

demonstrate the effectiveness of the

modified process 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

Paragraph 1 is satisfied. If Texas

Eastman changes operating conditions

as described in Paragraph 8, then Texas

Eastman must reinstate all testing in

Paragraph 3, pending a new

demonstration under this condition for

termination.

9. Data Submittals: The data obtained

through Paragraph 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 Paragraph 3 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
32762 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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 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.

To provide appropriate

documentation that Texas Eastman’s

facility is properly treating the waste, all

analytical data obtained through

Paragraph 3, including quality control

information, must be compiled,

summarized, and maintained on site for

a minimum of five years. Paragraph 9

requires that these data be furnished

upon request and made available for

inspection by any employee or

representative of EPA or the State where

the treatment facility is located.

If made final, the proposed exclusion

will apply only to the 7,000 cubic yards

generated annually of FBI ash generated

during the treatment of its wastewater

sludge in the Texas Eastman fluidized

bed incinerator after successful

verification testing. Except as described

in Paragraph 8, the facility would be

required to submit a new exclusion if

the treatment process specified for the

FBI incinerator or the WWTP is

significantly altered. Texas Eastman

would be required to file a new petition

for any new manufacturing or

production process(es), or significant

changes from the current process(es)

described in its petition which generates

the ash or which may or could affect the

composition or type of waste generated.

The facility must treat any FBI ash in

excess of the original 7,000 cubic yards

as hazardous unless 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.

III. 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, 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).

IV. Regulatory Impact

Under Executive Order 12866, 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

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 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.

V. 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 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.

VI. 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.

VII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘UMRA’’), Public Law 104–4, which

was signed into law on March 22, 1995,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement for rules with Federal

mandates that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, and tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year. When such a statement

is required for EPA rules, under section

205 of the UMRA, EPA must identify

and consider alternatives, including the

least costly, most cost-effective or least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objectives of the rule. 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules 32763

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.

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.

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 Tables 1, 2, and 3 of Appendix

IX of Part 261 it is proposed to add the

following waste stream in alphabetical

order by facility to read as follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes

Excluded Under § 260.20 and 260.22.

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description

* * * * * * *

Texas Eastman ...... Longview, Texas ... Incinerator ash (at a maximum generation of 7,000 cubic yards per calendar year) generated from

the incineration of sludge from the wastewater treatment plant (EPA Hazardous Waste No.D001,

D003, D018, D019, D021, D022, D027, D028, D029, D030, D032, D033, D034, D035, D036,

D038, D039, D040, F001, F002, F003, F005, after [insert publication date of the final rule]. Texas

Eastman must implement a testing program that meets the following conditions for the petition to

be valid:

1. Delisting Levels: All leachable concentrations for those metals must not exceed the following levels (ppm). Metal concentrations must be measured in the waste leachate by the method specified

in 40 CFR Part 261.24.

(A) Inorganic Constituents

Antimony—0.27; Arsenic—2.25; Barium—90.0; Beryllium—0.0009; Cadmium—0.225; Chromium—

4.5; Cobalt—94.5; Copper—58.5; Lead—0.675; Mercury—0.045; Nickel—4.5; Selenium—1.0; Silver—5.0; Thallium—0.135; Tin—945.0; Vanadium—13.5; Zinc—450.0.

(B) Organic Constituents

Acenaphthene—90.0; Acetone—180.0; Benzene—0.135; Benzo(a)anthracene—0.00347;

Benzo(a)pyrene—0.00045; Benzo(b) fluoranthene—0.00320; Bis(2 ethylhexyl) phthalate—0.27;

Butylbenzyl phthalate—315.0; Chloroform—0.45; Chlorobenzene—31.5; Carbon Disulfide—180.0;

Chrysene—0.1215; 1,2–Dichlorobenzene—135.0; 1,4–Dichlorobenzene—0.18; Di-n-butyl phthalate—180.0; Di-n-octyl phthalate—35.0; 1,4 Dioxane—0.36; Ethyl Acetate—1350.0; Ethyl Ether—

315.0; Ethylbenzene—180.0; Flouranthene—45.0; Fluorene—45.0; 1–Butanol—180.0; Methyl

Ethyl Ketone—200.0; Methylene Chloride—0.45; Methyl Isobutyl Ketone—90.0; Naphthalene—

45.0; Pyrene—45.0; Toluene—315.0; Xylenes—3150.0.

2. Waste Holding and Handling: Texas Eastman must store in accordance with its RCRA permit, or

continue to dispose of as hazardous all FBI ash generated until the Initial and Subsequent Verification Testing described in Paragraph 4 and 5 below is completed and valid analyses demonstrate that all Verification Testing Conditions are satisfied. After completion of Initial and Subsequent Verification Testing, if the levels of constituents measured in the samples of the FBI ash do

not exceed the levels set forth in Paragraph 1 above, and written notification is given by EPA,

then the waste is non-hazardous and may be managed and disposed of in accordance with all

applicable solid waste regulations.

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

described in Paragraph 4 below, Texas Eastman may replace the testing required in Paragraph 4

with the testing required in Paragraph 5 below. Texas Eastman must, however, continue to test

as specified in Paragraph 4 until notified by EPA in writing that testing in Paragraph 4 may be replaced by the testing described in Paragraph 5.

4. Initial Verification Testing: During the first 40 operating days of the FBI incinerator after the final

exclusion is granted, Texas Eastman must collect and analyze daily composites of the FBI ash.

Daily composites must be composed of representative grab samples collected every 6 hours during each 24-hour FBI operating cycle. The FBI ash must be analyzed, prior to disposal of the ash,

for all constituents listed in Paragraph 1. Texas Eastman must report the operational and analytical test data, including quality control information, obtained during this initial period no later than

90 days after the incineration of the wastewater treatment sludge.
32764 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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

Facility Address Waste description

5. Subsequent Verification Testing: Following the completion of the Initial Verification Testing, Texas

Eastman may request to monitor operating conditions and analyze samples representative of

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

untreated ash generated over one quarter. Following written notification from EPA, Texas Eastman may begin the quarterly testing described in this Paragraph.

6. Termination of Organic Testing: Texas Eastman must continue testing as required under Paragraph 5 for organic constituents specified in Paragraph 1 until the analyses submitted under

Paragraph 5 show a minimum of two consecutive quarterly samples below the delisting levels in

Paragraph 1. Texas Eastman may then request that quarterly organic testing be terminated. After

EPA notifies Texas Eastman in writing it may terminate quarterly organic testing.

7. Annual Testing: Following termination of quarterly testing under either Paragraphs 5 or 6, Texas

Eastman must continue to test a representative composite sample for all constituents listed in

Paragraph 1 (including organics) on an annual basis (no later than twelve months after the date

that the final exclusion is effective).

8. Changes in Operating Conditions: If Texas Eastman significantly changes the incineration process described in its petition or implements any new manufacturing or production process(es)

which generate(s) the ash and which may or could affect the composition or type of waste generated established under Paragraph 3 (by illustration {but not limitation}, use of stabilization reagents or operating conditions of the fluidized bed incinerator), Texas Eastman must notify the

EPA in writing and may no longer handle the wastes generated from the new process as nonhazardous until the wastes meet the delisting levels set in Paragraph 1 and it has received written approval to do so from EPA.

9. Data Submittals: The data obtained through Paragraph 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 Paragraph 3 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 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.

10. Notification Requirements: Texas Eastman 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.

TABLE 2.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description

* * * * * * *

Texas Eastman ...... Longview, Texas ... Incinerator ash (at a maximum generation of 7,000 cubic yards per calendar year) generated from

the incineration of sludge from the wastewater treatment plant (EPA Hazardous Waste No. K009

and K010, after [insert publication date of the final rule]. Texas Eastman must implement a testing

program that meets conditions found in Table 1. Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources for

the petition to be valid.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules 32765

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

RESIDUES, AND SOIL RESIDUES THEREOF

Facility Address Waste description

* * * * * * *

Texas Eastman ...... Longview, Texas .... Incinerator ash (at a maximum generation of 7,000 cubic yards per calendar year) generated from

the incineration of sludge from the wastewater treatment plant (EPA Hazardous Waste No. U001,

U002, U003, U019, U028, U031, U037, U044, U056, U069, U070, U107, U108, U112, U113,

U115, U117, U122, U140, U147, U151, U154, U159, U161, U169, U190, U196, U211, U213,

U226, U239, and U359, after [insert publication date of the final rule]. Texas Eastman must implement the testing program described in Table 1. Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources for

the petition to be valid.

* * * * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–15883 Filed 6–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5525–3]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Delete the

Omega Hills North Landfill Superfund

Site from the National Priorities List;

Request for Comments.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.

EPA) Region V announces its intent to

delete the Omega Hills Landfill Site

from the National Priorities List (NPL)

and requests public comment on this

action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B

to the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), which U.S. EPA promulgated

pursuant to Section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended. This

action is being taken by U.S. EPA,

because it has been determined that all

Fund-financed responses under

CERCLA have been implemented and

U.S. EPA, in consultation with the State

of Wisconsin, has determined that no

further response is appropriate.

Moreover, U.S. EPA and the State have

determined that remedial activities

conducted at the Site to date have been

protective of public health, welfare, and

the environment.

DATE: Comments concerning the

proposed deletion of the Site from the

NPL may be submitted on or before July

25, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Gladys Beard, Associate Remedial

Project Manager, Superfund Division,

U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 W. Jackson Blvd.

(SR–6J), Chicago, IL 60604.

Comprehensive information on the site

is available at U.S. EPA’s Region V

office and at the local information

repository located at: Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources, 101 S.

Webster, Madison, WI 53707. Requests

for comprehensive copies of documents

should be directed formally to the

Region V Docket Office. The address

and phone number for the Regional

Docket Officer is Jan Pfundheller (H–7J),

U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 W. Jackson

Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353–

5821.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gladys Beard (SR–6J), Associate

Remedial Project Manager, Superfund

Division, U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 W.

Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, (312)

886–7253 or Susan Pastor (P–19J),

Office of Public Affairs, U.S. EPA,

Region V, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,

IL 60604, (312) 353–1325.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region V announces its

intent to delete the Omega Hills North

Landfill Site from the National Priorities

List (NPL), which constitutes Appendix

B of the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), and requests comments on the

proposed deletion. The EPA identifies

sites that appear to present a significant

risk to public health, welfare or the

environment, and maintains the NPL as

the list of those sites. Sites on the NPL

may be the subject of remedial actions

financed by the Hazardous Substance

Superfund Response Trust Fund (Fund).

Pursuant to Section 300.425(e)(3) of the

NCP, any site deleted from the NPL

remains eligible for Fund-financed

remedial actions if the conditions at the

site warrant such action.

The U.S. EPA will accept comments

on this proposal for thirty (30) days after

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register.

Section II of this notice explains the

criteria for deleting sites from the NPL.

Section III discusses procedures that

EPA is using for this action. Section IV

discusses the history of this site and

explains how the site meets the deletion

criteria.

Deletion of sites from the NPL does

not itself create, alter, or revoke any

individual’s rights or obligations.

Furthermore, deletion from the NPL

does not in any way alter U.S. EPA’s

right to take enforcement actions, as

appropriate. The NPL is designed

primarily for informational purposes

and to assist in Agency management.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

The NCP establishes the criteria the

Agency uses to delete sites from the

NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR

300.425(e), sites may be deleted from

the NPL where no further response is

appropriate. In making this

determination, U.S. EPA will consider,

in consultation with the State, whether

any of the following criteria have been

met:

(i) Responsible parties or other

persons have implemented all

appropriate response actions required;

or

(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed

responses under CERCLA have been

implemented, and no further response

action by responsible parties is

appropriate; or

(iii) The Remedial Investigation has

shown that the release poses no

significant threat to public health or the

environment and, therefore, remedial

measures are not appropriate.

III. Deletion Procedures

Upon determination that at least one

of the criteria described in 300.425(e)

has been met, U.S. EPA may formally

begin deletion procedures once the State

has concurred. This Federal Register