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

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: December 4, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 233)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 75637-75651]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04de00-29]

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

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

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

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

Local Navigation