[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 233 (Monday, December 4, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75637-75651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30632]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW-FRL-6910-5]


Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of 
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to use the Delisting Risk Assessment 
Software (DRAS) in the evaluation of a delisting petition. Based on 
waste specific information provided by the petitioner, EPA is proposing 
to use the DRAS to evaluate the impact of the petitioned waste on human 
health and the environment. Today's proposal provides background 
information on the mechanics of the DRAS, and the use of the DRAS in 
delisting decision-making.
    The EPA is also proposing to grant a petition submitted by Eastman 
Chemical Company--Texas Operations, (Eastman) to exclude (or delist) 
certain solid wastes generated by its Longview, Texas, facility from 
the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.24 and 261.31 
(hereinafter all sectional references are to 40 CFR unless otherwise 
indicated).
    Eastman submitted the petition under sections 260.20 and 260.22(a). 
Section 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to 
modify or revoke any provision of sections 260 through 266, 268 and 
273. Section 260.22(a) specifically provides generators the opportunity 
to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator 
specific'' basis from the hazardous waste lists.
    The Agency bases its proposed decision to grant the petition on an 
evaluation of waste-specific information provided by the petitioner. 
This proposed decision, if finalized, would conditionally exclude the 
petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations 
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
    If finalized, we would conclude that Eastman's petitioned waste is 
nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria and that the 
waste process Eastman uses will substantially reduce the likelihood of 
migration of hazardous constituents from this waste. We would also 
conclude that their process minimizes short-term and long-term threats 
from the petitioned waste to human health and the environment.

DATES: We will accept comments until January 18, 2001. We will stamp 
comments received after the close of the comment period as ``late.'' 
These ``late'' comments may not be considered in formulating a final 
decision.
    Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by December 19, 2000. 
The request must contain the information prescribed in section 
260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Please send three copies of your comments. Two copies should 
be sent to William Gallagher, Delisting Section, Multimedia Planning 
and Permitting Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 
Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. A third copy should be sent to the 
Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC), P.O. Box 
13087, Austin, Texas, 78711-3087. Identify your comments at the top 
with this regulatory docket number: ``F-00-TXDEL-TXEASTMAN.''
    You should address requests for a hearing to the Director, Carl 
Edlund, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Peace at (214) 665-7430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Information in This Section is Organized as Follows

I. What risk assessment methods has the Agency used in previous 
delisting determinations that are being revised in this proposal?
    A. Introduction
    B. What fate and transport model does the Agency use in the DRAS 
for evaluating

[[Page 75638]]

the risks to groundwater from the proposed exempted waste?
    C. Why is the EPACMTP fate and transport model an improvement 
over the EPACML?
    D. Has the EPACMTP methodology been formally reviewed?
    E. Has the Agency modified the EPACMTP as utilized in the HWIR 
proposal?
    F. What modifications to the DRAS have been made since the 
proposal on September 27, 2000?
II. Overview Information
    A. What action is EPA proposing?
    B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this delisting?
    C. How will Eastman manage the waste if it is delisted?
    D. When would the proposed exclusion be finalized?
    E. How would this action affect states?
III. Background
    A. What is the history of the delisting program?
    B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a 
petitioner?
    C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a 
delisting petition?
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
    A. What wastes did Eastman petition EPA to delist?
    B. Who is Eastman and what process do they use to generate the 
petition waste?
    C. How did Eastman sample and analyze the data in this petition?
    D. What were the results of Eastman's analysis?
    E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
    F. What did EPA conclude about Eastman's analysis?
    G. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
    H. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
V. Next Steps
    A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?
    B. What happens if Eastman violates the terms and conditions?
VI. Public Comments
    A. How may I as an interested party submit comments?
    B. How may I review the docket or obtain copies of the proposed 
exclusions?
VII. Regulatory Impact
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
XI. Executive Order 13045
XII. Executive Order 13084
XIII. National Technology Transfer and Advancements Act
XIV. Executive Order 13132 Federalism

I. What Risk Assessment Methods Has the Agency Used in Previous 
Delisting Determinations That Are Being Revised in This Proposal?

A. Introduction

    The fate and transport of constituents in leachate from the bottom 
of the landfill or surface impoundment waste unit through the 
unsaturated zone (non-water bearing layer) and to a drinking water well 
in the saturated zone (water-bearing layer) is estimated using a fate 
and transport model. The Agency has applied the U.S. EPA Composite 
Model for Landfill (EPACML) fate and transport model to estimate 
constituent concentrations in groundwater at a receptor well located 
downgradient from a landfill or surface impoundment. The EPACML fate 
and transport model was used to determine a dilution attenuation factor 
(DAF). The DAF estimates the degree of dilution and attenuation that a 
waste constituent would undergo as it leaches from a waste management 
unit and is transported in the subsurface, into the saturated zone, and 
to a theoretical downgradient receptor well. The EPACML was originally 
developed to compute DAFs and set regulatory levels for specific 
constituents for the Toxicity Characteristics Rule (TC Rule) 55 FR 
11798 (March 29, 1990). Subsequently, the EPACML has been used for 
multiple RCRA delistings beginning with the Reynolds Metals delisting 
decision 56 FR 67197 (December 30, 1991). The EPACML accounts for:
     one-dimensional steady and uniform advective flow;
     contaminant dispersion in the longitudinal, lateral, and 
vertical directions and;
     sorption
    However, advances in groundwater fate and transport have been made 
in recent years and the Agency proposes the use of a more advanced 
groundwater fate and transport model for this RCRA delisting. More 
specific details about the DRAS can be found in 65 FR 58015 (September 
27, 2000).

B. What Fate and Transport Model Does the Agency Use in the DRAS for 
Evaluating the Risks to Groundwater From the Proposed Exempted Waste?

    The Agency proposes to use the EPACMTP (EPA's Composite Model for 
leachate migration with Transformation Products) in this delisting 
determination. The EPACMTP considers the subsurface fate and transport 
of chemical constituents. The EPACMTP is capable of simulating the fate 
and transport of dissolved contaminants from a point of release at the 
base of a waste management unit, through the unsaturated zone and 
underlying groundwater (saturated zone), to a receptor well at an 
arbitrary downstream location in the aquifer. The model accounts for 
the following mechanisms affecting contaminant migration: transport by 
advection and dispersion, retardation resulting from reversible linear 
or nonlinear equilibrium adsorption onto the soil and aquifer solid 
phase, and biochemical degradation processes (EPACMTP Background 
Document and User's Guide, 1996).

C. Why Is the EPACMTP Fate and Transport Model an Improvement Over the 
EPACML?

    The modeling approach used for this proposed rulemaking includes 
three major categories of enhancements over the EPACML. The 
enhancements include:
1--Incorporation of additional fate and transport processes (e.g., 
degradation of chemical constituents);
2--Use of enhanced flow and transport solution algorithms and 
techniques (e.g., three-dimensional transport) and;
3--Revision of the Monte Carlo methodology (e.g., site-based 
implementation of available input data) (EPACMTP Background Document 
and User's Guide, 1996)

    A Discussion of the key enhancements which have been implemented in 
the EPACMTP is presented here and the details are provided in the 
background documents to the proposed 1995 Hazardous Waste 
Identification Rule (HWIR) (60 FR 66344, December 21, 1995). The 
background documents are available through the RCRA HWIR FR proposal 
docket (60 FR 66344, December 21, 1995). The EPACML was limited to 
conditions of uniform groundwater flow. It could not handle accurately 
the conditions of significant groundwater mounding and non-uniform 
groundwater flow due to a high rate of infiltration from the waste 
units. These conditions increase the transverse horizontal as well as 
the vertical spreading of a contaminant plume. The EPACMTP accounts for 
these effects directly by simulating groundwater flow in the vertical 
as well as horizontal directions.
    The EPACMTP can simulate fate and transport of metals, taking into 
account geochemical influences on the mobility of metals. The EPA's 
MINTEQA2 metals speciation model is used to generate effective sorption 
isotherms for individual metals, corresponding to a range of 
geochemical conditions (EPACMTP Metals Background Document, 1996). The 
transport modules in EPACMTP have been enhanced to incorporate the 
nonlinear MINTEQ sorption isotherms. This enhancement provides the 
model with the capability to simulate, in the unsaturated and in the 
saturated zones, the impact of pH, leachate organic matter, natural 
organic matter, iron

[[Page 75639]]

hydroxide and the presence of other ions in the groundwater on the 
mobility of metals. The saturated zone module implemented in the EPACML 
was based on a Gaussian distribution of concentration of a chemical 
constituent in the saturated zone. The module also used an 
approximation to account for the initial mixing of the contaminant 
entering at the water table (saturated zone) underneath the waste unit. 
The module accounting for initial mixing in the EPACML could lead to 
unrealistic groundwater concentrations. The enhanced EPACMTP model 
incorporates a direct linkage between the unsaturated zone and 
saturated zone modules which overcomes these limitations of the EPACML.
    To enable a greater flexibility and range of conditions that can be 
modeled, the analytical saturated zone transport module has been 
replaced with a numerical module, based on the highly efficient state-
of-the-art Laplace Transform Galerkin (LTG) technique (EPACMTP 
Background Document and User's Guide, 1996). The enhanced module can 
simulate the anisotropic, non-uniform groundwater flow, and transient, 
finite source, conditions. The latter requires the model to calculate a 
maximum receptor well concentration over a finite time horizon, rather 
than just the steady state concentration which was calculated by the 
EPACML. The saturated zone modules have been implemented to provide 
either a fully three-dimensional (3D) solution, or a highly efficient 
quasi-3D solution. The latter has been implemented for Monte Carlo 
applications and provides nearly the same accuracy as the fully three 
dimensional option but is more computationally efficient. Both the 
unsaturated zone and the saturated zone transport modules can 
accommodate the formation and the transport of parent as well as of the 
transformation products.
    A highly efficient semi-analytical unsaturated zone transport 
module has been incorporated to handle the transport of metals in the 
unsaturated zone and can use MINTEQA2 derived linear or nonlinear 
sorption isotherms. Conventional numerical solution techniques are 
inadequate to handle extremely nonlinear isotherms. An enhanced method-
of-characteristic based solution has been implemented which overcomes 
these problems and thereby enables the simulation of metals transport 
in the Monte Carlo framework. Non-linearity in the metals sorption 
isotherms is primarily of concern at higher concentration values; for 
low concentrations, the isotherms are linear or close to linear. 
Because of the attenuation in the unsaturated zone, and the subsequent 
dilution in the saturated zone, concentrations in the saturated zone 
are usually low enough so that properly linearized isotherms are used 
by the model in the saturated zone without significant errors.
    The internal routines in the model which determine placement of the 
receptor well relative to the areal extent of the contaminant plume 
have been revised and enhanced. The calculation of the areal extent of 
the plume has been revised to take into consideration the dimensions of 
the waste unit. The logic for placing a receptor well inside the plume 
limits has been improved to eliminate a bias towards larger waste unit 
areas and to ensure that the placement of the well inside these limits, 
for a given radial distance from the unit, is truly randomly uniform. 
However, for this proposal, the closest drinking water well is located 
anywhere on the downgradient side of the waste unit.
    The data sources from which parameter distributions for nationwide 
Monte Carlo assessments are obtained have been evaluated, and where 
appropriate, have been revised to make use of the latest data available 
for modeling. Leachate rates for Subtitle D waste units have been 
revised using the latest version of the HELP model with the revised 
data inputs. Source specific input parameters (e.g., waste unit area 
and volume) have been developed for various different types of 
industrial waste units besides landfills. Input values for the 
groundwater related parameters have been revised to utilize information 
from a nationwide industry survey of actual contaminated sites. The 
original version of the model was implemented for Monte Carlo 
assessments assuming continuous source (infinite source) conditions 
only. This methodology did not take into account the finite volume and/
or operational life of waste units. The EPACMTP model has been 
implemented for Monte Carlo assessments of either continuous source or 
finite source scenarios. In the latter scenario, predicted groundwater 
impact is not only based on the concentrations of contaminants in the 
leachate, but also on the amount of constituent in the waste unit and/
or the operational life of the unit.
    The landfill is taken to be filled to capacity and covered when 
leaching begins. The time period during which the landfill is filled-
up, usually on the order of 20 years, is considered to be small 
relative to the time required to leach all of the constituent mass out 
of the landfill. The model simulation results indicate that this 
assumption is not unreasonable; the model calculated leaching duration 
is typically on the order of several hundred years. The leachate flux, 
or infiltration rate, is determined using the HELP model. The net 
infiltration rate is calculated using a water balance approach, which 
considers precipitation, evapo-transpiration, and surface run-off. The 
HELP model was used to calculate landfill infiltration rates for a 
representative subtitle D landfill with 2-foot earthen cover, and no 
liner or leachate collection system, using climatic data from 97 
climatic stations located throughout the United States. These 
correspond to the reasonable worst case assumptions as explained in the 
HWIR Risk Assessment Background Document for the HWIR proposed notice 
60 FR 66344 (December 21, 1995). Additional details on the 
methodologies used by the EPACMTP to derive DAFs for waste constituents 
modeled for the landfill scenario are presented in the Background 
Documents for the proposed HWIR rule. See 60 FR 66344 (December 21, 
1995). The fraction of waste in the landfill is assigned a uniform 
distribution with lower and upper limits of 0.036 and 1.0, 
respectively, based on analysis of waste composition in Subtitle D 
landfills. The lower bound assures that the waste unit will always 
contain a minimum amount of the waste of concern. The waste density is 
assigned a value based on reported densities of hazardous waste, and 
varies between 0.7 and 2.1 g/cm\3\.
    The area of the surface impoundment and the impoundment depth used 
by the EPACMTP are obtained from the EPA's Office of Solid Waste 
Subtitle D Industrial Survey and were entered into the Monte Carlo 
analyses as distributions. The sediment layer at the base of the 
impoundment is taken to be 2 feet thick and to have an effective 
equivalent saturated conductivity of 10\-7\ cm/s. These values were 
selected in recognition of the fact that most non-hazardous waste 
surface impoundments do have some kind of liner in place. Additional 
details on the methodologies used by the EPACMTP to derive DAFs for 
waste constituents modeled for the surface impoundment waste management 
scenario are presented in the Background Documents for the 1995 
proposed HWIR rule. See 60 FR 66344 (December 21, 1995).

D. Has the EPACMTP Methodology Been Formally Reviewed?

    The Science Advisory Board (SAB), a public advisory group that 
provides information and advice to the EPA, reviewed the EPACMTP model 
as part of a continuing effort to provide

[[Page 75640]]

improvements in the development and external peer review of 
environmental regulatory models. Overall, the SAB commended the Agency 
for making significant enhancements to the EPACMTP's predecessor, the 
EPACML and for responding to previous SAB suggestions. The SAB also 
concluded that the mathematical formulation incorporating daughter 
products into the model appeared to be correct and that the site-based 
approach using hydrogeologic regions is superior to the previous 
approach used in EPACML. The model underwent public comment during the 
1995 proposed HWIR. See 60 FR 66344 (December 21, 1995).

E. Has the Agency Modified the EPACMTP as Utilized in the HWIR 
Proposal?

    The EPACMTP, as developed for HWIR, determined the DAF using a 
Monte Carlo approach that selected, at random, a waste volume from a 
range of waste volumes identified in EPA's 1987 Subtitle D landfill 
survey. In delisting determinations, the waste volume of the petitioner 
is known. Therefore, application of EPACMTP to the delisting program 
has been modified to evaluate the specific waste volume. The Agency 
modified the DAFs determined under the HWIR proposal to account for a 
known waste volume. To generate waste volume-specific DAFs, EPA 
developed ``scaling factors'' to modify DAFs developed for HWIR (based 
on the entire range of disposal unit areas) to DAFs for delisting waste 
volumes. This was accomplished by computing a 90th percentile DAF for a 
conservative chemical for 10 specific waste volumes (ranging from 1,000 
cubic yards to 300,000 cubic yards) for each waste management scenario 
(landfill and surface impoundment). The Agency assumed that DAFs for a 
specific waste volume are linearly related to DAFs developed by EPACMTP 
for the HWIR. DAF scaling factors were computed for the ten increment 
waste volumes. Using these ten scaling factor DAFs, regression 
equations were developed for each waste management scenario to provide 
a continuum of DAF scaling factors as a function of waste volume.
    The regression equations are coded into the DRAS program which then 
automatically adjusts the DAF for the waste volume of the petitioner. 
The method used to verify the scaling factor approach is presented in 
the document, Application of EPACMTP to Region 6 Delisting Program: 
Development of Volume-adjusted Dilution Attenuation Factors (1996). For 
the landfill waste management scenario, the DAF scaling factors ranged 
from 9.5 for 10,000 cu. yard to approximately 1.0 for waste volumes 
greater than 200,000 cu. yards. Therefore, for solid waste volumes 
greater than 200,000 cu. yards, the waste volume-specific DAF is the 
same as the DAF computed for the proposed HWIR. The regression equation 
that can be used to determine the DAF scaling factor (DSF) as a 
function of waste volume (in cubic yards) for the landfill waste 
management unit is: DSF = 6152.7* (waste volume)-0.7135. The 
correlation coefficient of this regression equation is 0.99, indicating 
a good fit of this line to the data points. DAF scaling factors for 
surface impoundment waste volumes ranged from 2.4 for 2,000 cu. yards 
to approximately 1.0 for 100,000 cu. yards. For liquid waste volumes 
greater than 200,000 cu. yards, the waste volume-specific DAF is the 
same as the DAF computed for the proposed HWIR. The regression equation 
for DAF scaling factor (DSF) as a function of waste volume for surface 
impoundment wastes is: DSF = 14.2* (waste volume) -0.2288. 
The correlation coefficient of this regression equation is also 0.99, 
indicating an extremely good fit of this line to the data points.

F. What Modifications Have Been Made to the DRAS Since its Proposal on 
September 27, 2000?

    Several revisions have been made to the DRAS program in order to 
improve the modeling. Specifically, the groundwater inhalation pathway 
was revised to reflect recent advances in modeling household inhalation 
from home water use (e.g., showering). The basis for estimating the 
concentration of constituents in the indoor air is based on the mass 
transfer of constituent from water to shower air. The initial version 
of DRAS used a fate and transport model described by McKone and Bogen 
(1982) which predicted the highest waste concentration emitted from the 
water into the air during a given water use period (e.g., 10-minute 
shower). This method was revised to more accurately predict the average 
concentration occurring during the exposure event.
    The revised model used in this analysis is based the equations 
presented in McKone (1987). The shower model estimates the change in 
the shower (or bathroom or household) air concentration based on the 
mass of constituent lost by the water (fraction emitted or emission 
rate) and the air exchange rate between the various model compartments 
(shower, the rest of the bathroom, and the rest of the house). The 
resulting differential equations were solved using finite difference 
numerical integration. The average air concentration in the shower and 
bathroom are obtained by averaging the concentrations obtained for each 
time step over the duration of the exposure event (shower and bathroom 
use). These concentrations and the durations of daily exposure are used 
to estimate risk from inhalation exposures to residential use of 
groundwater. Further, improvements were made to more accurately reflect 
the transfer efficiency of the waste constituent from the groundwater 
to the air compartment. The fraction emitted from the bathroom or 
household water use is a function of the input transfer efficiency (or 
maximum fraction emitted) and the driving force for mass transfer (the 
differential between air saturation concentration at air/water 
interface and bulk air concentration). For example, in the shower 
compartment, the constituent emission rate is estimated from the change 
in the shower water concentration as the water falls through the air. 
The shower emissions can be modeled based on falling droplets as a 
means of estimating the surface-area-to-volume ratio for mass transfer 
and the residence time of the water in the shower compartment, assuming 
the compound concentration in the gas phase is constant over the time 
frame of the droplet fall. By assuming the drops fall at terminal 
velocity, the surface-area-to-volume ratio and the residence time can 
be determined based solely on droplet size. A droplet size of 
approximately 1 mm (0.1 cm) was selected. The terminal velocity for the 
selected droplet size is approximately 400 cm/s. The fraction of 
constituent emitted from a water droplet at any given time can then be 
calculated.
    The equations used to predict surface volatilization from a 
landfill have been modified to more accurately reflect true waste 
concentration releases. The previous version of DRAS used Farmer's 
equation to estimate the emission rate of volatiles from the surface of 
the landfill. Farmer's equation assumes that the emission originates as 
volatiles in liquids trapped in the pore spaces between solid particles 
of waste. The volatiles evaporate from the liquid and are emitted from 
the landfill following gaseous diffusion through the solid waste 
particles and soil cover to the surface of the landfill. Farmer's 
equation requires the mole fraction of a given volatile constituent in 
the liquid in order to calculate the emission. The previous version of 
DRAS used the TCLP value of a volatile constituent in the waste to 
approximate the mole fraction of a given constituent in the pore 
liquid. Since the TCLP test

[[Page 75641]]

includes a 20-fold dilution, the calculation might underestimate the 
available concentration of volatiles in freshly deposited waste. The 
DRAS has been revised to use Shen's modification of Farmer's equation, 
described in U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards' 
1984 Evaluation and Selection of Models for Estimating Air Emissions 
from Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities. EPA-
450/3-84-020. Shen took the simplified version of Farmer's equation for 
vapor flux from a soil surface and converted it to an emission rate by 
multiplying it by the exposed landfill area. Shen's modification uses 
the total waste constituent concentration (weight fraction in the bulk 
waste) to approximate the mole fraction of that constituent in the 
liquid phase.
    In estimating the amount of a given waste constituent that is 
released to surface water and eventually becomes freely dissolved in 
the water column, previous delisting petitions and the earlier version 
of the DRAS used the maximum observed TCLP concentration in waste as 
the total amount of the waste constituent available for erosion. 
Further, the former method assumed that all of the constituent mass 
that reached the stream, based on TCLP, became dissolved in the aqueous 
phase. Assuming complete conversion to a dissolved state is overly 
conservative and not in agreement with recent Agency methodology. In 
the revised DRAS, the total waste constituent concentration is used to 
estimate the constituent mass that reaches the stream. The portion of 
the waste constituent that becomes freely dissolved is determined by an 
estimate of partitioning between suspended solids and the aqueous 
phase. This methodology is described in U.S. EPA's 1998 Human Health 
Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities, 
Volume One. Peer Review Draft. EPA530-D-98-001A.
    Recent developments in mercury partitioning described in the 
Mercury Report to Congress led to another revision to the surface water 
pathway. The DRAS was modified to account for bioaccumulation of methyl 
mercury as a result of the release of mercury into the surface water 
column. The primary human health hazard posed by the release of mercury 
into surface water is through bioaccumulation of methyl mercury in fish 
followed by human consumption of the contaminated fish. Biological 
processes in surface water cause the conversion, or methylation, of 
elemental mercury to methyl mercury. In accordance with the Human 
Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion 
Facilities, Volume One. Peer Review Draft, 15% of mercury in the water 
column is assumed to be converted to methyl mercury. This fraction is 
then used, along with the current bioaccummulation factor, to determine 
the predicted concentration of methyl mercury in fish tissue.

II. Overview Information

A. What Action Is EPA Proposing?

    The EPA is proposing:

    (1) To grant Eastman's petition to have its wastewater treatment 
sludge excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a hazardous 
waste, subject to certain continued verification and monitoring 
conditions; and
    (2) To use a fate and transport model to evaluate the potential 
impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the environment. 
The Agency would use this model to predict the concentration of 
hazardous constituents released from the petitioned waste, once it 
is disposed.

B. Why Is EPA Proposing To Approve This Delisting?

    Eastman's petition requests a delisting for listed hazardous 
wastes. Eastman does not believe that the petitioned waste meets the 
criteria for which EPA listed it. Eastman also believes no additional 
constituents or factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA's 
review of this petition included consideration of the original listing 
criteria, and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and 
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 
U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)-(4). In making the initial 
delisting determination, EPA evaluated the petitioned waste against the 
listing criteria and factors cited in Secs. 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). 
Based on this review, the EPA agrees with the petitioner that the waste 
is nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. (If the 
EPA had found, based on this review, that the waste remained hazardous 
based on the factors for which the waste were originally listed, EPA 
would have proposed to deny the petition.) The EPA evaluated the waste 
with respect to other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a 
reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors could cause 
the waste to be hazardous. The EPA considered whether the waste is 
acutely toxic, the concentration of the constituents in the waste, 
their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in 
the environment once released from the waste, plausible and specific 
types of management of the petitioned waste, the quantities of waste 
generated, and waste variability. The EPA believes that the petitioned 
waste does not meet these criteria. EPA's proposed decision to delist 
waste from Eastman's facility is based on the information submitted in 
support of today's rule, i.e., descriptions of the waste water 
treatment system, incinerator, and analytical data from the Longview 
facility.

C. How Will Eastman Manage the Waste if it Is Delisted?

    Eastman currently disposes of the petitioned waste (wastewater 
treatment sludge) generated at its facility in an on-site, state 
permitted solid waste landfill after the sludge has been incinerated. 
The ash from the incineration process was delisted by EPA in June 1996. 
If the waste is delisted it will meet the criteria for disposal in a 
Subtitle D landfill without incineration.
    The incinerator is a RCRA Subtitle C regulated unit permitted by 
the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. This proposed 
decision will not affect the current regulatory controls on the 
incineration unit.

D. When Would EPA Finalize the Proposed Delisting?

    RCRA section 3001(f) specifically requires EPA to provide notice 
and an opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final 
exclusion. Thus, EPA will not grant the exclusion until it addresses 
all timely public comments (including those at public hearings, if any) 
on today's proposal.
    RCRA section 3010(b)(1) at 42 USCA 6920(b)(1),allows rules to 
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community 
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the 
case here, because this rule, if finalized, would reduce the existing 
requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes.
    The EPA believes that this exclusion should be effective 
immediately upon final publication because a six-month deadline is not 
necessary to achieve the purpose of section 3010(b), and a later 
effective date would impose unnecessary hardship and expense on this 
petitioner. These reasons also provide good cause for making this rule 
effective immediately, upon final publication, under the Administrative 
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

E. How Would This Action Affect the States?

    Because EPA is issuing today's exclusion under the Federal RCRA 
delisting program, only States subject to Federal RCRA delisting 
provisions would be affected. This would exclude

[[Page 75642]]

two categories of States: States having a dual system that includes 
Federal RCRA requirements and their own requirements, and States who 
have received authorization from EPA to make their own delisting 
decisions.
    Here are the details: We allow states to impose their own non-RCRA 
regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under 
section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 6929. These more stringent 
requirements may include a provision that prohibits a Federally issued 
exclusion from taking effect in the State. Because a dual system (that 
is, both Federal (RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a 
petitioner's waste, we urge petitioners to contact the State regulatory 
authority to establish the status of their wastes under the State law.
    The EPA has also authorized some States (for example, Louisiana, 
Georgia, Illinois) to administer a RCRA delisting program in place of 
the Federal program, that is, to make State delisting decisions. 
Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized States 
unless that State makes the rule part of its authorized program. If 
Eastman transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any 
State with delisting authorization, Eastman must obtain delisting 
authorization from that State before they can manage the waste as 
nonhazardous in the State.

III. Background

A. What Is the History of the Delisting Program?

    The EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from 
nonspecific and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its 
final and interim final regulations implementing Section 3001 of RCRA. 
The EPA has amended this list several times and published it in 
Secs. 261.31 and 261.32.
    We list these wastes as hazardous because: (1) They typically and 
frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous 
wastes identified in Subpart C of Part 261 (that is, ignitability, 
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or (2) they meet the criteria 
for listing contained in Secs. 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3).
    Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw 
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste 
described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a specific waste 
from an individual facility meeting the listing description may not be 
hazardous.
    For this reason, Secs. 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion 
procedure, called delisting, which allows persons to prove that EPA 
should not regulate a specific waste from a particular generating 
facility as a hazardous waste.

B. What Is a Delisting Petition, and What Does it Require of a 
Petitioner?

    A delisting petition is a request from a facility to EPA or an 
authorized State to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes. 
The facility petitions the Agency because they do not consider the 
wastes hazardous under RCRA regulations.
    In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that wastes 
generated at a particular facility do not meet any of the criteria for 
the listed wastes. The criteria for which EPA lists a waste are in Part 
261 and in the background documents for the listed wastes.
    In addition, under Sec. 260.22, a petitioner must prove that the 
waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (that 
is, ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and present 
sufficient information for EPA to decide whether factors other than 
those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a 
hazardous waste. (See Part 261 and the background documents for the 
listed wastes.)
    Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm whether their 
waste remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics 
even if EPA has ``delisted'' the wastes.

C. What Factors Must EPA Consider in Deciding Whether To Grant a 
Delisting Petition?

    Besides considering the criteria in Sec. 260.22(a) and 3001 (f) of 
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6921(f), and in the background documents for the 
listed wastes, EPA must consider any factors (including additional 
constituents) other than those for which we listed the waste if a 
reasonable basis exists that these additional factors could cause the 
waste to be hazardous.
    The EPA must also consider as hazardous wastes mixtures containing 
listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or 
disposing of listed hazardous waste. See Secs. 261.3(a)(2)(iii and iv) 
and (c)(2)(i), called the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules, 
respectively. These wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain 
hazardous wastes until excluded.
    The ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules are now final, after 
having been vacated, remanded, and reinstated. On December 6, 1991, the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the 
``mixture/derived from'' rules and remanded them to EPA on procedural 
grounds. See Shell Oil Co. v. EPA., 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1991). EPA 
reinstated the mixture and derived-from rules, and solicited comments 
on other ways to regulate waste mixtures and residues. See 57 FR 7628 
(March 3, 1992). These rules became final on October 30, 1992. See (57 
FR 49278). Consult these references for more information about mixtures 
derived from wastes.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Data

A. What Waste Did Eastman Petition EPA To Delist?

    On February 4, 2000, Eastman petitioned the EPA to exclude from the 
lists of hazardous waste contained in Secs. 261.31 and 261.32, a waste 
by-product (dewatered sludge from the wastewater treatment plant) which 
falls under the classification of listed waste because of the ``derived 
from'' rule in RCRA 40 CFR 261.3. Specifically, in its petition, 
Eastman Chemical Company, Texas Operations, located in Longview, Texas, 
requested that EPA grant an exclusion for 82,100 cubic yards per year 
of dewatered sludge resulting from its hazardous waste treatment 
process. The resulting waste is listed, in accordance with 
Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(i) (i.e., the ``derived from'' rule).

B. What Is Eastman Chemical Company, and What Process Does it use?

    Eastman occupies approximately 6,000 acres in Longview, Texas. The 
facility owns and operates an organic chemical and plastics 
manufacturing facility in Longview, Texas. During manufacturing 
operations, various waste waters are generated such as process waste 
water, blowdowns from boilers, cooling towers, and the incinerators, 
and some storm water. Process waste waters from the facility, 
blowdowns, recovered ground water, leachate from the RCRA hazardous 
waste landfill, and some storm water are routed to an activated sludge 
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). A sludge is generated from the waste 
water treatment system, which is dewatered and is currently sent to a 
fluidized bed incinerator (FBI) for thermal treatment. The resulting 
delisted FBI ash is disposed of in a solid waste landfill.
    Influent to the waste water treatment plant is a combination of 
hazardous and non-hazardous waste. During treatment of the influent 
waste water, biological sludge is generated and dewatered. The 
wastewater treatment sludge currently falls under the classification of 
listed waste according to RCRA 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i) because of the 
``derived

[[Page 75643]]

from'' rule. The waste codes of the constituents of concern are EPA 
Hazardous Waste Nos. F001, F002, F003, F005, K009, K010, U001, U002, 
U028, U031, U069, U088, U112, U115, U117, U122, U140, U147, U154, U159, 
U161, U220, U226, U239 and U359.
    Table 1 lists the constituents of concern for these waste codes.

      Table 1.--Hazardous Waste Codes Associated with Waste Streams
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Waste code                Basis for characteristics/listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F001........................  Tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride,
                               trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-
                               trichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride,
                               chlorinated fluorocarbons.
F002........................  Tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride,
                               trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-
                               trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane,
                               chlorobenzene, 1,1,2- trichloro-1,2,2-
                               trichlorofluoroethane,
                               orthodichlorobenzene,
                               trichlorofluoromethane.
F003........................  Not applicable.
F005........................  Toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon
                               disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine, 2-
                               ethoxyethanol, benzene, 2-nitropropane.
K009........................  Chloroform, formaldehyde, methylene
                               chloride, methyl chloride, paraldehyde,
                               formic acid.
K010........................  Chloroform, formaldehyde, methylene
                               chloride, methyl chloride, paraldehyde,
                               formic acid, chloroacetaldehyde.
U001........................  Acetaldehyde.
U002........................  Acetone.
U028........................  Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.
U031........................  n-Butyl alcohol.
U069........................  Dibutyl phthalate.
U088........................  Di-ethyl phthalate.
U112........................  Ethyl acetate.
U115........................  Ethylene Oxide.
U117........................  Ethyl ether.
U122........................  Formaldehyde.
U140........................  Isobutyl alcohol.
U147........................  Maleic anhydride.
U154........................  Methanol.
U159........................  Methyl ethyl ketone.
U161........................  Methyl isobutyl ketone.
U220........................  Toluene.
U226........................  1,1,1 Trichloroethane (Methyl chloroform).
U239........................  Xylene.
U359........................  Ethylene Glycol monoethyl ether.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. How Did Eastman Sample and Analyze the Waste Data in This Petition?

    To support its petition, Eastman submitted:
    (1) descriptions of its waste water treatment system associated 
with petitioned wastes;
    (2) results of the total constituent list for 40 CFR Part 264 
Appendix IX volatiles, semivolatiles, and metals except pesticides, 
herbicides, and PCBs;
    (3) results of the constituent list for Appendix IX on Toxicity 
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract for volatiles, 
semivolatiles, and metals;
    (4) results for reactive sulfide,
    (5) results for reactive cyanide;
    (6) results for pH;
    (7) results of the metals concentrations using multiple pH 
extraction fluids;
    (8) information and results from testing of the fluidized bed 
incinerator's compliance testing and
    (9) results from oil and grease analysis.

D. What Were the Results of Eastman's Analysis?

    The EPA believes that the descriptions of the Eastman hazardous 
waste process and analytical characterization provide a reasonable 
basis to grant Eastman's petition for an exclusion of the wastewater 
treatment sludge. The EPA believes the data submitted in support of the 
petition show Eastman's process can render the wastewater treatment 
sludge non-hazardous. The EPA has reviewed the sampling procedures used 
by Eastman and has determined they satisfy EPA criteria for collecting 
representative samples of the variations in constituent concentrations 
in the wastewater treatment sludge. The data submitted in support of 
the petition show that constituents in Eastman's waste are presently 
below health-based levels used in the delisting decision-making. The 
EPA believes that Eastman has successfully demonstrated that the 
wastewater treatment sludge is non-hazardous.
    Eastman Chemical also conducted additional sampling at the pHs of 
4.93, 7.0, and 10.1 to simulate whether the wastes would remain stable 
if disposed in a wide range of landfill pH environments. The highest 
level of leaching occurred at pH 4.93. The leachate concentrations for 
barium, nickel and zinc were below the maximum leachate concentration 
listed in Table II.
    Eastman also provide data from its 1998 trial burn to demonstrate 
that the FBI incinerator met the required organic destruction and 
removal efficiency for RCRA incinerators and that the unit also met the 
Boiler and Industrial Furnace Tier I limits for metals.

E. How did EPA Evaluate the Risk of Delisting the Waste?

    For this delisting determination, EPA used such information 
gathered to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground water, 
surface water, air) for hazardous constituents present in the 
petitioned waste. The EPA determined that disposal in a Subtitle D 
landfill is the most reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for 
Eastman's petitioned waste. EPA applied the Delisting Risk Assessment 
Software (DRAS) described above, to predict the maximum allowable 
concentrations of hazardous constituents that may release from the 
petitioned waste after disposal and determined the potential impact of 
the disposal of Eastman's petitioned waste on human health and the 
environment. In assessing potential risks to ground water, EPA used the 
maximum estimated waste volumes and the maximum reported extract 
concentrations as inputs to the DRAS

[[Page 75644]]

program to estimate the constituent concentrations in the ground water 
at a hypothetical receptor well down gradient from the disposal site. 
Using the established an acceptable risk level (carcinogenic risk of 
10-\5\ and non-cancer hazard index of 0.1), the DRAS program can back-
calculate the acceptable receptor well concentrations (referred to as 
compliance-point concentrations) using standard risk assessment 
algorithms and Agency health-based numbers. Using the maximum 
compliance-point concentrations and the EPACMTP fate and transport 
modeling factors, the DRAS further back-calculates the maximum 
permissible waste constituent concentrations not expected to exceed the 
compliance-point concentrations in groundwater.
    The EPA believes that the EPACMTP fate and transport model 
represents a reasonable worst-case scenario for possible ground water 
contamination resulting from disposal of the petitioned waste in a 
landfill, and that a reasonable worst-case scenario is appropriate when 
evaluating whether a waste should be relieved of the protective 
management constraints of RCRA Subtitle C. The use of some reasonable 
worst-case scenario resulted in conservative values for the compliance-
point concentrations and ensured that the waste, once removed from 
hazardous waste regulation, may not pose a significant threat to human 
health or the environment.
    Similarly, the DRAS used the maximum estimated waste volumes and 
the maximum reported total concentrations to predict possible risks 
associated with releases of waste constituents through surface pathways 
(e.g., volatilization or wind-blown particulate from the landfill). As 
in the ground water analyses, the DRAS uses the established acceptable 
risk level, the health-based data and standard risk assessment and 
exposure algorithms to predicts maximum compliance-point concentrations 
of waste constituents at a hypothetical point of exposure. Using fate 
and transport equations, the DRAS uses the maximum compliance-point 
concentrations and back-calculates the maximum allowable waste 
constituent concentrations (or ``delisting levels''). In most cases, 
because a delisted waste is no longer subject to hazardous waste 
control, EPA is generally unable to predict, and does not presently 
control, how a petitioner will manage a waste after delisting. 
Therefore, EPA currently believes that it is inappropriate to consider 
extensive site-specific factors when applying the fate and transport 
model.
    The EPA also considers the applicability of ground water monitoring 
data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this case, 
Eastman has never directly disposed of this material in its solid waste 
landfill, so no representative data exists. Therefore, EPA has 
determined that it would be unnecessary to request ground water 
monitoring data.
    From the evaluation of Eastman's delisting petition, EPA developed 
a list of constituents for the verification testing conditions. 
Proposed maximum allowable leachable concentrations for these 
constituents were derived by back-calculating from the delisting 
health-based levels through the proposed fate and transport model for a 
landfill management scenario. These concentrations (i.e., ``delisting 
levels'') are part of the proposed verification testing conditions of 
the exclusion.
    The EPA believes that the descriptions of Eastman's hazardous waste 
process and analytical characterization, in conjunction with the 
proposed testing requirements (as discussed later in this notice) 
provide a reasonable basis to conclude that the likelihood of migration 
of hazardous constituents from the petitioned waste will be 
substantially reduced so that short-term and long-term threats to human 
health and the environment are minimized. Thus, EPA should grant 
Eastman's petition for a conditional exclusion of the wastewater 
treatment sludge.
    The EPA Region 6 Delisting Program guidance document states that 
the appropriate fate and effect model will be used to determine the 
effect the petitioned waste could have on human health if it is not 
managed as a hazardous waste. Specifically, the model considers the 
maximum estimated waste volume and the maximum reported leachate 
concentrations as inputs to estimate the constituent concentrations in 
the ground water at a hypothetical receptor well downgradient from the 
disposal site. The calculated receptor well concentrations (referred to 
as compliance-point concentrations) are then compared directly to the 
health-based levels used in delisting decision-making for hazardous 
constituents of concern. EPA Region 6 is proposing the DRAS as the 
appropriate model for this delisting. This subsection presents an 
evaluation of the potential for ground water contamination for the 
petitioned waste using the DRAS.
    The EPA considered the appropriateness of alternative waste 
management scenarios for Eastman's wastewater treatment sludge. The EPA 
decided, based on the information provided in the petition, that 
disposal of the wastewater treatment sludge in a municipal solid waste 
landfill is the most reasonable, worst-case scenario for the wastewater 
treatment sludge. Under a landfill disposal scenario, the major 
exposure route of concern for any hazardous constituents would be 
ingestion of contaminated ground water. The EPA, therefore, evaluated 
Eastman's petitioned waste using DRAS which predicts the potential for 
ground water contamination from waste placed in a landfill.
    For the evaluation of Eastman's petitioned waste, EPA used the DRAS 
to evaluate the mobility of the hazardous constituents detected in the 
extract of samples of Eastman's wastewater treatment sludge. Total 
analysis was also utilized for the wastewater treatment sludge. The 
maximum annual waste volume for Eastman is 82,100 cubic yards per year. 
The DAFs are currently calculated assuming an ongoing process generates 
waste for 20 years.
    Analytical data for the wastewater treatment sludge samples were 
used in the model. The data summaries for detected constituents are 
presented in Tables II and III.
    The EPA's evaluation of the wastewater treatment sludge is based on 
the maximum reported Total and TCLP concentrations (See Table II). 
Based on the DRAS, the petitioned waste should be delisted because no 
constituents of concern exceed the delisting concentrations.

 Table II.--Maximum Total and TCLP Constituent Concentrations Wastewater
                          Treatment Sludge \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Total
                                            Constituent    TCLP Leachate
               Constituent                 Analyses (mg/   Concentration
                                                kg)           (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony................................           1.5            0.050
Barium..................................          13              0.083
Chromium................................           2.5            0.010

[[Page 75645]]

 
Cobalt..................................           3.5            0.062
Lead....................................           2.1            0.050
Mercury.................................           0.067          0.0015
Nickel..................................          20              0.18
Selenium................................           1.5            0.065
Silver..................................           0.18           0.005
Vanadium................................           1.7            0.014
Zinc....................................          97              1.7
Acenaphthene............................           1.8            0.010
Acetone.................................           2.5            4.0
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthlate..............           4.1            0.010
2-Butanone..............................           2.5            1.4
Chloroform..............................           0.25           0.009
Fluorene................................           2.0            0.010
Methanol................................           0.052          5.0
Methylene Chloride......................           0.25           0.15
2-Methyl naphthalene....................           7.4            0.010
Naphthalene.............................           5.5            0.010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent
  found in any one sample. These levels do not necessarily represent the
  specific levels found in one sample.


Table III.--Maximum Allowable Concentrations of Constituents in Leachate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
                                                             allowable
                       Constituent                           leachate
                                                           concentration
                                                              (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony................................................         0.0515
Barium..................................................         7.3
Chromium................................................         5.0
Cobalt..................................................         2.25
Lead....................................................         5.0
Mercury.................................................         0.00115
Nickel..................................................         2.83
Selenium................................................         0.22
Silver..................................................         0.384
Vanadium................................................         2.11
Zinc....................................................        28
Acenaphthene............................................         1.25
Acetone.................................................         7.13
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthlate..............................         0.28
2-Butanone..............................................        48.2
Chloroform..............................................         0.0099
Fluorene................................................         0.55
Methanol................................................        35.7
Methylene Chloride......................................         0.486
Naphthalene.............................................         0.0321
------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. What Did EPA Conclude About Eastman's Analysis?

    The EPA concluded, after reviewing Eastman's processes that no 
other hazardous constituents of concern, other than those for which 
tested, are likely to be present or formed as reaction products or by 
products in Eastman's waste. In addition, on the basis of explanations 
and analytical data provided by Eastman, pursuant to Sec. 260.22, the 
EPA concludes that the petitioned waste does not exhibit any of the 
characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. See 
Secs. 261.21, 261.22, and 261.23, respectively.

G. What Other Factors Did EPA Consider?

    During the evaluation of Eastman's petition, EPA also considered 
the potential impact of the petitioned waste via non-ground water 
routes (i.e., air emission and surface runoff). With regard to airborne 
dispersion in particular, EPA believes that exposure to airborne 
contaminants from Eastman's petitioned waste is unlikely. Therefore, no 
appreciable air releases are likely from Eastman's waste under any 
likely disposal conditions. The EPA evaluated the potential hazards 
resulting from the unlikely scenario of airborne exposure to hazardous 
constituents released from Eastman's waste in an open landfill. The 
results of this worst-case analysis indicated that there is no 
substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the 
environment from airborne exposure to constituents from Eastman's 
Wastewater treatment sludge. A description of EPA's assessment of the 
potential impact of Eastman's waste, regarding airborne dispersion of 
waste contaminants, is presented in the RCRA public docket for today's 
proposed rule, F-00-TXDEL-TXEASTMAN.
    The EPA also considered the potential impact of the petitioned 
waste via a surface water route. The EPA believes that containment 
structures at municipal solid waste landfills can effectively control 
surface water runoff, as the Subtitle D regulations (See 56 FR 50978, 
October 9, 1991) prohibit pollutant discharges into surface waters. 
Furthermore, the concentrations of any hazardous constituents dissolved 
in the runoff will tend to be lower than the levels in the TCLP 
leachate analyses reported in today's notice due to the aggressive 
acidic medium used for extraction in the TCLP. The EPA believes that, 
in general, leachate derived from the waste is unlikely to directly 
enter a surface water body without first traveling through the 
saturated subsurface where dilution and attenuation of hazardous 
constituents will also occur. Leachable concentrations provide a direct 
measure of solubility of a toxic constituent in water and are 
indicative of the fraction of the constituent that may be mobilized in 
surface water as well as ground water.
    Based on the reasons discussed above, EPA believes that the 
contamination of surface water through runoff from the waste disposal 
area is very unlikely. Nevertheless, EPA evaluated the potential 
impacts on surface water if Eastman's waste were released from a 
municipal solid waste landfill through runoff and erosion. See the RCRA 
public docket for today's proposed rule for further information on the 
potential surface water impacts from runoff and erosion. The estimated 
levels of the hazardous constituents of concern in surface water would 
be well below health-based levels for human health, as well as below 
EPA Chronic Water Quality Criteria for aquatic organisms (USEPA, OWRS, 
1987). The EPA, therefore, concluded that Eastman's wastewater 
treatment sludge is not a present or potential substantial hazard

[[Page 75646]]

to human health and the environment via the surface water exposure 
pathway.

H. What Is EPA's Evaluation of This Delisting Petition?

    The descriptions of Eastman's hazardous waste process and 
analytical characterization, with the proposed verification testing 
requirements (as discussed later in this notice), provide a reasonable 
basis for EPA to grant the exclusion. The data submitted in support of 
the petition show that constituents in the waste are below the maximum 
allowable leachable concentrations (see Table III). We believe 
Eastman's process will substantially reduce the likelihood of migration 
of hazardous constituents from the petitioned waste. Eastman's process 
also minimizes short-term and long-term threats from the petitioned 
waste to human health and the environment.
    Thus, EPA believes we should grant Eastman an exclusion for the 
wastewater treatment sludge. The EPA believes the data submitted in 
support of the petition show Eastman's process can render the 
wastewater treatment sludge nonhazardous.
    We have reviewed the sampling procedures used by Eastman and have 
determined they satisfy EPA criteria for collecting representative 
samples of variable constituent concentrations in the wastewater 
treatment sludge. The data submitted in support of the petition show 
that constituents in Eastman's waste are presently below the compliance 
point concentrations used in the delisting decision-making and would 
not pose a substantial hazard to the environment. The EPA believes that 
Eastman has successfully demonstrated that the wastewater treatment 
sludge is nonhazardous.
    The EPA therefore, proposes to grant a conditional exclusion to the 
Eastman Chemical Company, in Longview, Texas, for the wastewater 
treatment sludge described in its petition. The EPA's decision to 
conditionally exclude this waste is based on descriptions of the 
treatment activities associated with the petitioned waste and 
characterization of the wastewater treatment sludge.
    If we finalize the proposed rule, the Agency will no longer 
regulate the petitioned waste under parts 262 through 268 and the 
permitting standards of part 270.

V. Next Steps

A. With What Conditions Must the Petitioner Comply?

    The petitioner, Eastman, must comply with the requirements in 40 
CFR part 261, Appendix IX, Tables 1, 2, and 3. The text below gives the 
rationale and details of those requirements.
(1) Delisting Levels
    This paragraph provides the levels of constituents for which 
Eastman must test the leachate from the wastewater treatment sludge, 
below which these wastes would be considered nonhazardous.
    The EPA selected the set of inorganic and organic constituents 
specified in Paragraph (1) because of information in the petition. We 
compiled the list from the composition of the waste, descriptions of 
Eastman's treatment process, previous test data provided for the waste, 
and the respective health-based levels used in delisting decision-
making.
    These delisting levels correspond to the allowable levels measured 
in the TCLP extract of the waste.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling
    The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that any wastewater 
treatment sludge which might contain hazardous levels of inorganic and 
organic constituents are managed and disposed of in accordance with 
Subtitle C of RCRA. If EPA determines that the data collected under 
this condition do not support the data provided in the petition, the 
exclusion will not cover the petitioned waste.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements
    Although the wastewater treatment sludge would be considered 
delisted upon promulgation of the final rule, EPA believes that 
conditional testing requirements are still warranted to ensure 
continued effectiveness of the treatment process. During the initial 
verification period, which is described in paragraph (3)(A), Eastman 
must perform quarterly sampling for a period of one year to maintain 
the delisted status of the waste. As an additional condition of the 
initial verification period, the waste must continue to be processed in 
the incinerator prior to disposal in a landfill. After successful 
completion of the initial verification period, which is 12 months from 
the date of promulgation, the subsequent verification period, which is 
described in paragraph (3)(B), will begin. During the subsequent 
verification period, the waste may be either directly disposed in a 
landfill or disposed as an ash in a landfill with prior incineration.
    (A) Testing: The EPA believes that quarterly sampling of this waste 
is adequate for a facility to collect sufficient data to verify that 
the data provided for the wastewater treatment sludge in the 2000 
petition, is representative. Eastman may dispose of the sludge as a 
non-hazardous waste during the initial verification period if the waste 
is processed as described in the 1996 delisting exclusion and meets the 
exclusion levels of the fluidized bed incinerator ash.
    If the data from the initial verification period demonstrate that 
the treatment process is effective, Eastman may request subsequent 
verification testing. EPA will notify Eastman, in writing, if and when 
it may replace the testing conditions in paragraph(3)(A)(i) with the 
testing conditions in (3)(B).
    (B) Subsequent Verification Testing: The EPA believes that the 
concentrations of the constituents of concern in the wastewater 
treatment sludge may vary over time. As a result, to ensure that 
Eastman's treatment process can effectively handle any variation in 
constituent concentrations in the waste, we are proposing a subsequent 
verification testing condition.
    The proposed subsequent testing would verify that Eastman wastes 
are similar to those sludges generated during the initial verification 
testing. It would also verify that the wastewater treatment sludge does 
not exhibit unacceptable levels of toxic constituents. Eastman would 
begin annual sampling on the anniversary date of the final exclusion.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions
    Paragraph (4) would allow Eastman the flexibility of modifying its 
processes (for example, changes in equipment or changes in operating 
conditions) to improve its treatment process. However, Eastman must 
prove the effectiveness of the modified process and request approval 
from the EPA. Eastman must manage wastes generated during the new 
process demonstration as hazardous waste until they have obtained 
written approval and Paragraph (3) is satisfied.
(5) Data Submittals
    To provide appropriate documentation that Eastman's facility is 
properly treating the waste, Eastman must compile, summarize, and keep 
delisting records on-site for a minimum of five years. They should keep 
all analytical data obtained through Paragraph (3) including quality 
control information for five years. Paragraph (5) requires that Eastman 
furnish these data upon request for inspection by any employee or 
representative of EPA or the State of Texas.
    If the proposed exclusion is made final, it will apply only to 
82,100 cubic

[[Page 75647]]

yards of wastewater treatment sludge, generated annually at the Eastman 
facility after successful verification testing.
    We would require Eastman to file a new delisting petition under any 
of the following circumstances:
    (a) If it uses any new manufacturing or production process(es), or 
significantly change from the current process(es) described in its 
petition; or
    (b) If it makes any changes that could affect the composition or 
type of waste generated.
    Eastman must manage waste volumes greater than 82,100 cubic yards 
of wastewater treatment sludge as hazardous until we grant a new 
exclusion.
    If this exclusion becomes final, Eastman's management of the wastes 
covered by this petition would be relieved from Subtitle C 
jurisdiction. Eastman would be required to either treat, store, or 
dispose of the waste in an on-site facility that has a State permit, 
license, or is registered to manage municipal or industrial solid 
waste. If not, Eastman must ensure that it delivers the waste to an 
off-site storage, treatment, or disposal facility that has a State 
permit, license, or is registered to manage municipal or industrial 
solid waste.
(6) Reopener Language
    The purpose of Paragraph 6 is to require Eastman to disclose new or 
different information related to a condition at the facility or 
disposal of the waste if it is pertinent to the delisting. Eastman must 
also use this procedure, if the waste sample in the annual testing 
fails to meet the levels found in Paragraph 1. This provision will 
allow EPA to reevaluate the exclusion if a source provides new or 
additional information to the Agency. The EPA will evaluate the 
information on which we based the decision to see if it is still 
correct, or if circumstances have changed so that the information is no 
longer correct or would cause EPA to deny the petition if presented. 
This provision expressly requires Eastman to report differing site 
conditions or assumptions used in the petition in addition to failure 
to meet the annual testing conditions within 10 days of discovery. If 
EPA discovers such information itself or from a third party, it can act 
on it as appropriate. The language being proposed is similar to those 
provisions found in RCRA regulations governing no-migration petitions 
at Sec. 268.6.
    The EPA believes that we have the authority under RCRA and the 
Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 551 (1978) et seq., to 
reopen a delisting decision. We may reopen a delisting decision when we 
receive new information that calls into question the assumptions 
underlying the delisting.
    The Agency believes a clear statement of its authority in 
delistings is merited in light of Agency experience. See Reynolds 
Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 (July 14, 1997)and 62 FR 63458 (December 
1, 1997) where the delisted waste leached at greater concentrations in 
the environment than the concentrations predicted when conducting the 
TCLP, thus leading the Agency to repeal the delisting. If an immediate 
threat to human health and the environment presents itself, EPA will 
continue to address these situations case by case. Where necessary, EPA 
will make a good cause finding to justify emergency rulemaking. See APA 
Sec. 553 (b).
(7) Notification Requirements
    In order to adequately track wastes that have been delisted, EPA is 
requiring that Eastman provide a one-time notification to any State 
regulatory agency through which or to which the delisted waste is being 
carried. Eastman currently intends to manage the petitioned waste on-
site. This notification requirement must be met if the waste is 
transported off-site. Eastman must provide this notification within 60 
days of commencing this activity.

B. What Happens if Eastman Violates the Terms and Conditions?

    If Eastman violates the terms and conditions established in the 
exclusion, the Agency will start procedures to withdraw the exclusion. 
Where there is an immediate threat to human health and the environment, 
the Agency will evaluate the need for enforcement activities on a case-
by-case basis. The Agency expects Eastman to conduct the appropriate 
waste analysis and comply with the criteria explained above in 
Paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the exclusion.

VI. Public Comments

A. How Can I as an Interested Party Submit Comments?

    The EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision. 
Please send three copies of your comments. Send two copies to William 
Gallagher, Delisting Section, Multimedia Planning and Permitting 
Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. Send a third copy to the Texas Natural 
Resource Conservation Commission, 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 
78753. Identify your comments at the top with this regulatory docket 
number: ``F-00-TXDEL-EASTMAN.''
    You should submit requests for a hearing to Carl Edlund, Director, 
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD), Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202.

B. How May I Review the Docket or Obtain Copies of the Proposed 
Exclusion?

    You may review the RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule at 
the Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 
Texas 75202. It is available for viewing in the EPA Freedom of 
Information Act Review Room from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for 
appointments. The public may copy material from any regulatory docket 
at no cost for the first 100 pages, and at fifteen cents per page for 
additional copies.

VII. Regulatory Impact

    Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of 
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory 
actions.
    The proposal to grant an exclusion is not significant, since its 
effect, if promulgated, would be to reduce the overall costs and 
economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. This 
reduction would be achieved by excluding waste generated at a specific 
facility from EPA's lists of hazardous wastes, thus enabling a facility 
to manage its waste as nonhazardous.
    Because there is no additional impact from today's proposed rule, 
this proposal would not be a significant regulation, and no cost/
benefit assessment is required. The Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) has also exempted this rule from the requirement for OMB review 
under Section (6) of Executive Order 12866.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, whenever an 
agency is required to publish a general notice of rulemaking for any 
proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public 
comment a regulatory flexibility analysis which describes the impact of 
the rule on small entities (that is, small businesses, small 
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). No regulatory 
flexibility analysis is required, however, if the

[[Page 75648]]

Administrator or delegated representative certifies that the rule will 
not have any impact on small entities.
    This rule, if promulgated, will not have an adverse economic impact 
on small entities since its effect would be to reduce the overall costs 
of EPA's hazardous waste regulations and would be limited to one 
facility. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this proposed regulation, 
if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. This regulation, therefore, does 
not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Information collection and record-keeping requirements associated 
with this proposed rule have been approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1980 (Public Law 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned 
OMB Control Number 2050-0053.

X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995, 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement for rules with Federal 
mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local, and tribal 
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million 
or more in any one year.
    When such a statement is required for EPA rules, under section 205 
of the UMRA EPA must identify and consider alternatives, including the 
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The EPA must select that 
alternative, unless the Administrator explains in the final rule why it 
was not selected or it is inconsistent with law.
    Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, it must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small 
government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially 
affected small governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in 
the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them 
on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate for regulatory 
purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon state, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector.
    The EPA finds that today's delisting decision is deregulatory in 
nature and does not impose any enforceable duty on any State, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector. In addition, the proposed 
delisting decision does not establish any regulatory requirements for 
small governments and so does not require a small government agency 
plan under UMRA section 203.

XI. Executive Order 13045

    The Executive Order 13045 is entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997). This order applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) is 
economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and 
(2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This 
proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because this is not an 
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive 
Order 12866.

XII. Executive Order 13084

    Because this action does not involve any requirements that affect 
Indian Tribes, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 
13084 do not apply.
    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects 
that communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments.
    If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office 
Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the 
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation.
    In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected and other representatives of 
Indian tribal governments ``to meaningful and timely input'' in the 
development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or 
uniquely affect their communities of Indian tribal governments. This 
action does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian 
Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive 
Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

XIII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act, the Agency is directed to use voluntary consensus 
standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices, 
etc.) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. 
Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus 
standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires that Agency to provide 
Congress, through the OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using 
such standards.
    This rule does not establish any new technical standards and thus, 
the Agency has no need to consider the use of voluntary consensus 
standards in developing this final rule.

XIV. Executive Order 13132 Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that impose substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law 
unless the Agency consults with

[[Page 75649]]

State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation.
    This action does not have federalism implication. It will not have 
a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the 
national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132, because it affects only one facility.

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous Waste, Recycling, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f)

    Dated: November 17, 2000.
Bill Luthans,
Deputy Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Region 6.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

    1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.

    2. In Tables 1, 2, and 3 of Appendix IX of part 261 it is proposed 
to add the following waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to 
read as follows:
    Appendix IX to Part 261--Waste Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and 
260.22.

                               Table 1.--Waste Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Facility                        Address                          Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
Eastman Chemical Company.............  Longview, Texas........  Wastewater treatment sludge, (at a maximum
                                                                 generation of 82,100 cubic yards per calendar
                                                                 year) generated by Eastman (EPA Hazardous Waste
                                                                 Nos. F001, F002, F003, F005 generated at
                                                                 Eastman.
                                                                Eastman must implement a testing program that
                                                                 meets the following conditions for the
                                                                 exclusion to be valid:
                                                                (1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations for the
                                                                 following constituents must not exceed the
                                                                 following levels (mg/l). For the wastewater
                                                                 treatment sludge constituents must be measured
                                                                 in the waste leachate by the method specified
                                                                 in 40 CFR 261.24.
                                                                (A) Wastewater treatment sludge
                                                                  (i) Inorganic Constituents: Antimony--0.0515;
                                                                 Barium--7.30; Cobalt--2.25; Chromium--5.0;
                                                                 Lead--5.00; Mercury--0.0015; Nickel--2.83;
                                                                 Selenium--0.22; Silver--0.384; Vanadium--2.11;
                                                                 Zinc--28.0
                                                                  (ii) Organic Constituents: Acenaphthene--1.25;
                                                                 Acetone--7.13; bis(2-ethylhexylphthalate--0.28;
                                                                 2-butanone--42.8; Chloroform--0.0099; Fluorene--
                                                                 0.55; Methanol--35.7; Methylene Chloride--
                                                                 0.486; naphthalene--0.0321.
                                                                (2) Waste Holding and Handling: Eastman may
                                                                 dispose of the waste water treatment sludge if
                                                                 it meets the conditions of the Eastman
                                                                 delisting exclusion found in 40 CFR Part 261,
                                                                 Appendix IX Tables, 1, 2, and 3 (September 25,
                                                                 1996). If the waste water treatment sludge is
                                                                 not managed in the manner above, Eastman must
                                                                 manage it in accordance with applicable its
                                                                 RCRA Subtitle C requirements. If the levels of
                                                                 constituents measured in the samples of the
                                                                 waste water treatment sludge do not exceed the
                                                                 levels set forth in Condition (1), then the
                                                                 waste is nonhazardous and may be managed and
                                                                 disposed of in accordance with all applicable
                                                                 solid waste regulations.
                                                                (3) Verification Testing Requirements: Eastman
                                                                 must perform sample collection and analyses,
                                                                 including quality control procedures, according
                                                                 to SW-846 methodologies. After completion of
                                                                 the initial verification period, Eastman may
                                                                 replace the testing required in Condition
                                                                 (3)(A) with the testing required in Condition
                                                                 (3)(B). Eastman must continue to test as
                                                                 specified in Condition (3)(A) until and unless
                                                                 notified by EPA in writing that testing in
                                                                 Condition (3)(A) may be replaced by Condition
                                                                 (3)(B).
                                                                (A) Initial Verification Testing: (i) At
                                                                 quarterly intervals for one year after the
                                                                 final exclusion is granted, Eastman must
                                                                 collect and analyze composites of the
                                                                 wastewater treatment sludge for constituents
                                                                 listed in Condition (1).
                                                                (B) Subsequent Verification Testing: Following
                                                                 termination of the quarterly testing, Eastman
                                                                 must continue to test a representative
                                                                 composite sample for all constituents listed in
                                                                 Condition (1) on an annual basis (no later than
                                                                 twelve months after the final exclusion).
                                                                (4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If Eastman
                                                                 significantly changes the process which
                                                                 generate(s) the waste(s) and which may or could
                                                                 affect the composition or type waste(s)
                                                                 generated as established under Condition (1)
                                                                 (by illustration, but not limitation, change in
                                                                 equipment or operating conditions of the
                                                                 treatment process). Eastman must notify the EPA
                                                                 in writing and may no longer handle the waste
                                                                 generated from the new process or no longer
                                                                 manage as nonhazardous until the waste meet the
                                                                 delisting levels set in Condition (1) and it
                                                                 has received written approval to do so from
                                                                 EPA.
                                                                (5) Data Submittals: Eastman must submit or
                                                                 maintain, as applicable, the information
                                                                 described below. If Eastman fails to submit the
                                                                 required data within the specified time or
                                                                 maintain the required records on-site for the
                                                                 specified time, EPA, at its discretion, will
                                                                 consider this sufficient basis to reopen the
                                                                 exclusion as described in Condition (6).
                                                                 Eastman must:

[[Page 75650]]

 
                                                                (A) Submit the data obtained through Condition
                                                                 (3) to Mr. William Gallagher, Chief, Region 6
                                                                 Delisting Program, EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue,
                                                                 Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, Mail Code, (6PD-O)
                                                                 within the time specified.
                                                                (B) Compile records of operating conditions and
                                                                 analytical data from Condition (3), summarized,
                                                                 and maintained on-site for a minimum of five
                                                                 years.
                                                                (C) Furnish these records and data when EPA or
                                                                 the State of Texas request them for inspection.
                                                                (D) Send along with all data a signed copy of
                                                                 the following certification statement, to
                                                                 attest to the truth and accuracy of the data
                                                                 submitted:
                                                                  ``Under civil and criminal penalty of law for
                                                                 the making or submission of false or fraudulent
                                                                 statements or representations (pursuant to the
                                                                 applicable provisions of the Federal Code,
                                                                 which include, but may not be limited to, 18
                                                                 U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify that
                                                                 the information contained in or accompanying
                                                                 this document is true, accurate and complete.
                                                                  ``As to the (those) identified section(s) of
                                                                 this document for which I cannot personally
                                                                 verify its (their) truth and accuracy, I
                                                                 certify as the company official having
                                                                 supervisory responsibility for the persons who,
                                                                 acting under my direct instructions, made the
                                                                 verification that this information is true,
                                                                 accurate and complete.
                                                                  ``If any of this information is determined by
                                                                 EPA in its sole discretion to be false,
                                                                 inaccurate or incomplete, and upon conveyance
                                                                 of this fact to the company, I recognize and
                                                                 agree that this exclusion of waste will be void
                                                                 as if it never had effect or to the extent
                                                                 directed by EPA and that the company will be
                                                                 liable for any actions taken in contravention
                                                                 of the company's RCRA and CERCLA obligations
                                                                 premised upon the company's reliance on the
                                                                 void exclusion.''
                                                                (6) Reopener Language (A) If, anytime after
                                                                 disposal of the delisted waste, Eastman
                                                                 possesses or is otherwise made aware of any
                                                                 environmental data (including but not limited
                                                                 to leachate data or groundwater monitoring
                                                                 data) or any other data relevant to the
                                                                 delisted waste indicating that any constituent
                                                                 identified for the delisting verification
                                                                 testing is at level higher than the delisting
                                                                 level allowed by the Regional Administrator or
                                                                 his delegate in granting the petition, then the
                                                                 facility must report the data, in writing, to
                                                                 the Regional Administrator or his delegate
                                                                 within 10 days of first possessing or being
                                                                 made aware of that data.
                                                                (B) If the annual testing of the waste does not
                                                                 meet the delisting requirements in Condition
                                                                 (1), Eastman must report the data, in writing,
                                                                 to the Regional Administrator or his delegate
                                                                 within 10 days of first possessing or being
                                                                 made aware of that data.
                                                                (C) If Eastman fails to submit the information
                                                                 described in Conditions (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B)
                                                                 or if any other information is received from
                                                                 any source, the Regional Administrator or his
                                                                 delegate will make a preliminary determination
                                                                 as to whether the reported information requires
                                                                 Agency action to protect human health or the
                                                                 environment. Further action may include
                                                                 suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other
                                                                 appropriate response necessary to protect human
                                                                 health and the environment.
                                                                (D) If the Regional Administrator or his
                                                                 delegate determines that the reported
                                                                 information does require Agency action, the
                                                                 Regional Administrator or his delegate will
                                                                 notify the facility in writing of the actions
                                                                 the Regional Administrator or his delegate
                                                                 believes are necessary to protect human health
                                                                 and the environment. The notice shall include a
                                                                 statement of the proposed action and a
                                                                 statement providing the facility with an
                                                                 opportunity to present information as to why
                                                                 the proposed Agency action is not necessary.
                                                                 The facility shall have 10 days from the date
                                                                 of the Regional Administrator or his delegate's
                                                                 notice to present such information.
                                                                (E) Following the receipt of information from
                                                                 the facility described in Condition (6)(D) or
                                                                 (if no information is presented under Condition
                                                                 (6)(D)) the initial receipt of information
                                                                 described in Conditions (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B),
                                                                 the Regional Administrator or his delegate will
                                                                 issue a final written determination describing
                                                                 the Agency actions that are necessary to
                                                                 protect human health or the environment. Any
                                                                 required action described in the Regional
                                                                 Administrator or his delegate's determination
                                                                 shall become effective immediately, unless the
                                                                 Regional Administrator or his delegate provides
                                                                 otherwise.
                                                                (7) Notification Requirements: Eastman must do
                                                                 following before transporting the delisted
                                                                 waste off-site: Failure to provide this
                                                                 notification will result in a violation of the
                                                                 delisting petition and a possible revocation of
                                                                 the exclusion.
                                                                (A) Provide a one-time written notification to
                                                                 any State Regulatory Agency to which or through
                                                                 which they will transport the delisted waste
                                                                 described above for disposal, 60 days before
                                                                 beginning such activities.
                                                                (B) Update the one-time written notification if
                                                                 they ship the delisted waste into a different
                                                                 disposal facility.

[[Page 75651]]

 
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 Table 2.--Waste Excluded From Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Facility                        Address                          Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
Eastman Chemical Company.............  Longview,Texas.........  Wastewater treatment sludge, (at a maximum
                                                                 generation of 82,100 cubic yards per calendar
                                                                 year) (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K009, K010)
                                                                 generated at Eastman. Eastman must implement
                                                                 the testing program described in Table 1 of
                                                                 this Appendix. Waste Excluded From Non-Specific
                                                                 Sources for the petition to be valid.
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 3.--Waste Excluded From Commercial Chemical Products, Off Specification Species, Container Residues, and
                                              Soil Residues Thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Facility                        Address                          Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Chemical Company.............  Longview, Texas........  Wastewater treatment sludge, (at a maximum
                                                                 generation of 82,100 cubic yards per calendar
                                                                 year) generated by Eastman (EPA Hazardous Waste
                                                                 Nos. U001, U002, U028, U031, U069, U088, U112,
                                                                 U115, U117, U122, U140, U147, U154, U159, U161,
                                                                 U220, U226, U239, U359). Eastman must implement
                                                                 the testing program described in Table 1 of
                                                                 this Appendix. Waste Excluded From Non-Specific
                                                                 Sources for the petition to be valid.
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 00-30632 Filed 12-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P