[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50238-50244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24588]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR PART 261
[SW-FRL-5615-5]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a
petition submitted by the Texas Eastman Division of Eastman Chemical
Company (Texas Eastman) to exclude from hazardous waste control (or
delist), certain solid wastes. The wastes being delisted consists of
ash generated from the incineration of waste water treatment sludge at
its facility. This action responds to Texas Eastman's petition to
delist these wastes on a ``generator specific'' basis from the lists of
hazardous wastes. After careful analysis, EPA has concluded that the
petitioned waste is not hazardous waste when disposed of in Subtitle D
landfills. This exclusion applies only to the fluidized bed incinerator
(FBI) ash generated at Texas Eastman's Longview, Texas, facility.
Accordingly, this final rule excludes the petitioned waste from the
requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of in Subtitle D
landfills.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this final rule is located at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
[[Page 50239]]
Texas 75202, and is available for viewing in the EPA library on the
12th floor from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for appointments. The
reference number for this docket is ``F-96-TXDEL-TXEASTMAN.'' The
public may copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the
first 100 pages, and at $0.15 per page for additional copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: For technical information concerning
this notice, contact Michelle Peace, Delisting Program (6PD-O), Region
6, Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas
75202, (214) 665-7430.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Authority
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition EPA to
remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding them from
the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Secs. 261.31 and 261.32.
Specifically, Sec. 260.20 allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through
265 and 268 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and
Sec. 260.22 provides generators the opportunity to petition the
Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator-specific'' basis from
the hazardous waste lists. Petitioners must provide sufficient
information to allow EPA to determine that the waste to be excluded
does not meet any of the criteria under which the waste was listed as a
hazardous waste. In addition, the Administrator must determine, where
he/she has a reasonable basis to believe that factors (including
additional constituents) other than those for which the waste was
listed could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste, that such factors
do not warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
B. History of this Rulemaking
Texas Eastman petitioned EPA to exclude from hazardous waste
control the ash produced from the incineration of sludge from their
waste water treatment plant. The ash is currently disposed in an on-
site hazardous waste landfill at Texas Eastman in Longview, Texas.
After evaluating the petition, EPA proposed, on June 25, 1996, to
exclude Texas Eastman's waste from the lists of hazardous waste under
Secs. 261.31 and 261.32. See 61 FR 32753. This rulemaking addresses
public comments received on the proposal and finalizes the proposed
decision to grant Texas Eastman's petition.
II. Disposition of Delisting Petition
Eastman Chemical Company--Texas Eastman Division, Longview, Texas,
75607
A. Proposed Exclusion
Texas Eastman petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists of hazardous
wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32, an annual volume of ash
generated from incineration of sludge from its wastewater treatment
plant. Specifically, in its petition, Texas Eastman requested that EPA
grant a standard exclusion for 7,000 cubic yards of incinerator ash
generated per calendar year. The FBI ash is listed for 56 EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers due to the ``derived-from'' and mixture rules. The waste
is listed as D001, D003, D018, D019, D021, D022, D027, D028, D029,
D030, D032, D033, D034, D035, D036, D038, D039, D040, F001, F003, F005,
K009, K010, U001, U002, U003, U019, U028, U031, U037, U044, U056, U069,
U070, U107, U108, U112, U113, U115, U117, U122, U140, U147, U151, U154,
U159, U161, U169, U190, U196, U211, U213, U226, U239, and U359. The
listed constituents of concern for these EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers
are shown in Table 1. See, part 261, Appendix VII.
Table 1.--Hazardous Waste Codes Associated With Wastewater Streams
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste code Basis for characteristic/listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D001......................... Ignitability.
D003......................... Reactivity.
D018......................... Benzene.
D019......................... Carbon Tetrachloride.
D021......................... Chlorobenzene.
D022......................... Chloroform.
D027......................... 1,4-Dichlorobenzene.
D028......................... 1,2-Dichloroethane.
D029......................... 1,1-Dichloroethylene.
D030......................... 2,4-Dinitrotoluene.
D032......................... Hexaclorobenzene.
D033......................... Hexachlorobutadiene.
D034......................... Hexachloroethane.
D035......................... Methyl ethyl ketone.
D036......................... Nitrobenzene.
D038......................... Pyridine.
D039......................... Tetrachloroethylene.
D040......................... Trichloroethylene.
F001......................... Tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride,
Trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride,
chlorinated fluorocarbons.
F002......................... Tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride,
Trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane,
chlorobenzene, 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2
trichfluoroethane, ortho-
dichlorobenzene, trichlorofluoromethane.
F003......................... Not applicable, waste is hazardous
because it fails the test for
characteristics of ignitability,
corrosivity, or reactivity.
F005......................... Toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon
disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine, 2-
ethoxyethanol, benzene, 2-nitropropane.
K009......................... Chloroform, formaldehyde, methylene
chloride, methyl chloride, paraldehyde,
formic acid.
K010......................... Chloroform, formaldehyde, methylene
chloride, methyl chloride, paraldehyde,
formic acid, chloroacetaldehyde.
U001......................... Acetaldehyde.
U002......................... Acetone.
U003......................... Acetonitrile.
U019......................... Benzene.
U028......................... Benzenetrichloride.
[[Page 50240]]
U031......................... n-Butyl alcohol.
U037......................... Chlorobenzene.
U044......................... Chloroform.
U056......................... Cyclohexane.
U069......................... Dibutyl phthlate.
U070......................... o-Dichlorobenzene.
U107......................... Di-n-octyl-phthlate.
U108......................... 1,4-Diethyleneoxide.
U112......................... Ethyl acetate.
U113......................... Ethyl acrylate.
U115......................... Ethlene oxide.
U117......................... Ethyl ether.
U122......................... Formaldehyde.
U140......................... Isobutyl alcohol.
U147......................... Maleic anhydride.
U151......................... Mercury.
U154......................... Methanol.
U159......................... Methyl ethyl ketone.
U161......................... Methyl isobutyl ketone.
U169......................... Nitrobenzene.
U190......................... Phthalic anhydride.
U196......................... Pyridine.
U211......................... Carbon Tetrachloride.
U213......................... Tetrahydrofuran.
U226......................... 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (methyl
chloroform).
U239......................... Xylene.
U359......................... Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Eastman petitioned EPA to exclude this annual volume of FBI
ash because it does not believe that the waste meets the criteria for
which it was listed. Texas Eastman also believes that the waste does
not contain any other constituents that would render it hazardous.
Review of this petition included consideration of the original listing
criteria, as well as the additional factors required by the HSWA of
1984. See, section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR
260.22(d)(2)-(4).
In support of its petition, which included the sampling and
analysis plan and ground water monitoring data from the landfill, Texas
Eastman submitted: (1) Descriptions of its wastewater treatment
processes and the incineration activities associated with the
petitioned waste; (2) results from total constituent analyses for the
Toxicity Characteristic (TC) metals listed in Sec. 261.24 (i.e., the TC
metals) antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, tin,
vanadium, and zinc from representative samples of the waste; (3)
results from the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP),
(SW-846 Method 1311) for the TC metals antimony, arsenic, barium,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel,
selenium, silver, thallium, tin, vanadium, and zinc from representative
samples of the waste; (4) results from the Multiple Extraction
Procedure (MEP), (SW-846 Method 1330) for antimony, arsenic, barium,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel,
selenium, silver, thallium, tin, vanadium, and zinc from representative
samples of the waste; (5) test results from the total constituent
analyses for dioxins/furans from representative samples of the waste;
(6) results from total oil and grease analyses from representative
samples of the waste; (7) test results and information regarding the
hazardous characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity;
(8) results from total constituent and TCLP analyses for 40 CFR Part
264 Appendix IX volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds from
representative samples of the waste; and (9) results from the Land
Disposal Restriction Analysis performed on the untreated ash. Texas
Eastman also provided total constituent analyses and for the biological
treatment sludge, scrubber water blowdown, influent wastewater and
waste liquid fuel associated with the generation of the FBI ash.
B. Summary of Response to Comments
The EPA received public comment on the June 25, 1996, proposal from
one interested party, Texas Eastman. The commenter provided a variety
of clarifications and corrections, primarily for the record, on various
items and details addressed in the proposed rule. The commenter also
recommended slight modifications to the proposed language for the
testing conditions detailed in the regulatory exclusion. Specifically,
Texas Eastman would like paragraph 5 of the verification testing
conditions revised so the data submittal for the initial testing will
occur 90 days after the receipt of the validated analytical results
instead of 90 days after the incineration of the wastewater treatment
sludge as stated in the proposed rule. Texas Eastman also expressed
concerns regarding the delisting levels of several constituents,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a) anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, 1,4-dioxane,
and methylene chloride. Texas Eastman states that the delisting levels
are significantly lower than the Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs)
for the methods commonly used to analyze these constituents and that
the delisting level for methylene chloride, does not account for the
fact that it is a common laboratory contaminant.
Response: The EPA will revise the verification testing condition
language in paragraph as suggested by Texas Eastman to account for
laboratory analysis time, validation, and compilation of the data
collected. The EPA recognizes that determination of some organic
constituents using SW-846 analytical methods may be difficult. However,
delisting levels for the leachable organic concentrations are not set
at PQLs, because PQLs are matrix dependent. The EPA understands that
[[Page 50241]]
using current analytical methodologies, Texas Eastman may not be able
to obtain quantitation levels for some of the constituents below the
delisting levels set in paragraph 1 (B). For these constituents, EPA
will accept data that are reported as ``not detected'' or ``below the
detection limit'' as long as an appropriate analytical method is used,
the detection limit reported is reasonable for the analyzed matrix, and
that all of the required Quality Assurance/Quality Control information
is provided and is determined to be adequate. In the case for methylene
chloride, EPA can not allow the concentration of any constituent
detected in the waste to exceed the maximum allowable leachate
concentration, even common laboratory contaminants. The health-based
level for methylene chloride is 1.0 x 10-2 mg/l, so the maximum
allowable leachate concentration is 0.45, using the dilution
attenuation factor of 45. In the information provided to support the
Texas Eastman petition, methylene chloride did not appear at
concentrations above the delisting level in the leachate samples of the
waste.
C. Final Agency Decision
For reasons stated in both the proposal and this notice, EPA
believes that Texas Eastman's FBI ash should be excluded from hazardous
waste control. The EPA, therefore, is granting a final exclusion to
Eastman Chemical Company-Texas Eastman Division, located in Longview,
Texas, for its FBI ash. This exclusion applies to the waste described
in the petition, only if the requirements described in Table 1 of part
261 are satisfied. The maximum annual volume of FBI ash covered by this
exclusion is 7,000 cubic yards.
Although management of the waste covered by this petition is
relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction, the generator of the delisted
waste must either treat, store, or dispose of the waste in an on-site
facility, or ensure that the waste is delivered to an off-site storage,
treatment, or disposal facility, either of which is permitted, licensed
or registered by a State to manage municipal or industrial solid waste.
III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion
The final exclusion being granted today is issued under the Federal
(RCRA) delisting program. States, however, are allowed to impose their
own, non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more stringent than
EPA's, pursuant to section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent
requirements may include a provision which prohibits a Federally-issued
exclusion from taking effect in the State. Because a petitioner's waste
may be regulated under a dual system (i.e., both Federal (RCRA) and
State (non-RCRA) programs), petitioners are urged to contact the State
regulatory authority to determine the current status of their wastes
under the State law.
Furthermore, some States (e.g., Louisiana, Georgia, Illinois) are
authorized to administer a delisting program in lieu of the Federal
program, i.e., to make their own delisting decisions. Therefore, this
exclusion does not apply in those authorized States. If the petitioned
waste will be transported to and managed in any State with delisting
authorization, Texas Eastman must obtain delisting authorization from
that State before the waste can be managed as non-hazardous in the
State.
IV. Effective Date
This rule is effective September 25, 1996. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended Section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the
case here because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the
existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes. These
reasons also provide a basis for making this rule effective
immediately, upon publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
V. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory
actions. This proposal to grant an exclusion is not significant since
its effect, if promulgated, would be to reduce the overall costs and
economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. This
reduction would be achieved by excluding waste generated at a specific
facility from EPA's lists of hazardous wastes, thereby enabling this
facility to treat its waste as non-hazardous. There is no additional
impact due to today's rule. Therefore, this proposal would not be a
significant regulation, and no cost/benefit assessment is required. The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has also exempted this rule from
the requirement for OMB review under Section (6) of Executive Order
12866.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612,
whenever an agency is required to publish a general notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the
Administrator or delegated representative certifies that the rule will
not have any impact on any small entities.
This rule, if promulgated, will not have any adverse economic
impact on any small entities since its effect would be to reduce the
overall costs of EPA's hazardous waste regulations and would be limited
to one facility. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this proposed
regulation, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation, therefore,
does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated
with this proposed rule have been approved by OMB under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2050-0053.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995,
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
[[Page 50242]]
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising them on compliance with the
regulatory requirements. The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate
for regulatory purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon
state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. The EPA finds
that today's proposed delisting decision is deregulatory in nature and
does not impose any enforceable duty upon state, local or tribal
governments or the private sector. In addition, the proposed delisting
does not establish any regulatory requirements for small governments
and so does not require a small government agency plan under UMRA
section 203.
IX. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Hazardous Waste, Recycling, and Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6921(f).
Dated: September 17, 1996.
Jerry Clifford,
Deputy Regional Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is 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. Tables 1, 2, and 3 of Appendix IX of part 261 are amended by
adding the following waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to
read as follows:
Appendix IX--Wastes Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and 260.22.
Table 1.--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Texas Eastman........................... Longview, Texas............ Incinerator ash (at a maximum generation
of 7,000 cubic yards per calendar year)
generated from the incineration of
sludge from the wastewater treatment
plant (EPA Hazardous Waste No. D001,
D003, D018, D019, D021, D022, D027,
D028, D029, D030, D032, D033, D034,
D035, D036, D038, D039, D040, F001,
F002, F003, F005, and that is disposed
of in Subtitle D landfills after
September 25, 1996. Texas Eastman must
implement a testing program that meets
the following conditions for the
petition to be valid:
1. Delisting Levels: All leachable
concentrations for those metals must not
exceed the following levels (mg/l).
Metal concentrations must be measured in
the waste leachate by the method
specified in 40 CFR Sec. 261.24.
(A) Inorganic Constituents
Antimony--0.27; Arsenic--2.25; Barium--
90.0; Beryllium--0.0009; Cadmium--0.225;
Chromium--4.5; Cobalt--94.5; Copper--
58.5; Lead--0.675; Mercury--0.045;
Nickel--4.5; Selenium--1.0; Silver--5.0;
Thallium--0.135; Tin--945.0; Vanadium--
13.5; Zinc--450.0
(B) Organic Constituents
Acenaphthene--90.0; Acetone--180.0;
Benzene--0.135; Benzo(a)anthracene--
0.00347; Benzo(a)pyrene--0.00045;
Benzo(b) fluoranthene--0.00320; Bis(2
ethylhexyl) phthalate--0.27; Butylbenzyl
phthalate--315.0; Chloroform--0.45;
Chlorobenzene--31.5; Carbon Disulfide--
180.0; Chrysene--0.1215; 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene--135.0; 1,4-
Dichlorobenzene--0.18; Di-n-butyl
phthalate--180.0; Di-n-octyl phthalate--
35.0; 1,4 Dioxane--0.36; Ethyl Acetate--
1350.0; Ethyl Ether--315.0;
Ethylbenzene--180.0; Flouranthene--45.0;
Fluorene--45.0; 1-Butanol--180.0; Methyl
Ethyl Ketone--200.0; Methylene Chloride--
0.45; Methyl Isobutyl Ketone--90.0;
Naphthalene--45.0; Pyrene--45.0;
Toluene--315.0; Xylenes--3150.0
2. Waste Holding and Handling: Texas
Eastman must store in accordance with
its RCRA permit, or continue to dispose
of as hazardous all FBI ash generated
until the Initial and Subsequent
Verification Testing described in
Paragraph 4 and 5 below is completed and
valid analyses demonstrate that all
Verification Testing Conditions are
satisfied. After completion of Initial
and Subsequent Verification Testing, if
the levels of constituents measured in
the samples of the FBI ash do not exceed
the levels set forth in Paragraph 1
above, and written notification is given
by EPA, then the waste is non-hazardous
and may be managed and disposed of in
accordance with all applicable solid
waste regulations.
[[Page 50243]]
3. Verification Testing Requirements:
Sample collection and analyses,
including quality control procedures,
must be performed according to SW-846
methodologies. If EPA judges the
incineration process to be effective
under the operating conditions used
during the initial verification testing
described in Paragraph 4 below, Texas
Eastman may replace the testing required
in Paragraph 4 with the testing required
in Paragraph 5 below. Texas Eastman
must, however, continue to test as
specified in Paragraph 4 until notified
by EPA in writing that testing in
Paragraph 4 may be replaced by the
testing described in Paragraph 5.
4. Initial Verification Testing: During
the first 40 operating days of the FBI
incinerator after the final exclusion is
granted, Texas Eastman must collect and
analyze daily composites of the FBI ash.
Daily composites must be composed of
representative grab samples collected
every 6 hours during each 24-hour FBI
operating cycle. The FBI ash must be
analyzed, prior to disposal of the ash,
for all constituents listed in Paragraph
1. Texas Eastman must report the
operational and analytical test data,
including quality control information,
obtained during this initial period no
later than 90 days after receipt of the
validated analytical results.
5. Subsequent Verification Testing:
Following the completion of the Initial
Verification Testing, Texas Eastman may
request to monitor operating conditions
and analyze samples representative of
each quarter of operation during the
first year of ash generation. The
samples must represent the untreated ash
generated over one quarter. Following
written notification from EPA, Texas
Eastman may begin the quarterly testing
described in this Paragraph.
6. Termination of Organic Testing: Texas
Eastman must continue testing as
required under Paragraph 5 for organic
constituents specified in Paragraph 1
until the analyses submitted under
Paragraph 5 show a minimum of two
consecutive quarterly samples below the
delisting levels in Paragraph 1. Texas
Eastman may then request that quarterly
organic testing be terminated. After EPA
notifies Texas Eastman in writing it may
terminate quarterly organic testing.
7. Annual Testing: Following termination
of quarterly testing under either
Paragraphs 5 or 6, Texas Eastman must
continue to test a representative
composite sample for all constituents
listed in Paragraph 1 (including
organics) on an annual basis (no later
than twelve months after the date that
the final exclusion is effective).
8. Changes in Operating Conditions: If
Texas Eastman significantly changes the
incineration process described in its
petition or implements any new
manufacturing or production process(es)
which generate(s) the ash and which may
or could affect the composition or type
of waste generated established under
Paragraph 3 (by illustration {but not
limitation}, use of stabilization
reagents or operating conditions of the
fluidized bed incinerator), Texas
Eastman must notify the EPA in writing
and may no longer handle the wastes
generated from the new process as non-
hazardous until the wastes meet the
delisting levels set in Paragraph 1 and
it has received written approval to do
so from EPA.
9. Data Submittals: The data obtained
through Paragraph 3 must be submitted to
Mr. William Gallagher, Chief, Region 6
Delisting Program, U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, Mail
Code, (6PD-O) within the time period
specified. Records of operating
conditions and analytical data from
Paragraph 3 must be compiled,
summarized, and maintained on site for a
minimum of five years. These records and
data must be furnished upon request by
EPA, or the State of Texas, and made
available for inspection. Failure to
submit the required data within the
specified time period or maintain the
required records on site for the
specified time will be considered by
EPA, at its discretion, sufficient basis
to revoke the exclusion to the extent
directed by EPA. All data must be
accompanied by a signed copy of the
following certification statement to
attest to the truth and accuracy of the
data submitted:
Under civil and criminal penalty of law
for the making or submission of false or
fraudulent statements or representations
(pursuant to the applicable provisions
of the Federal Code, which include, but
may not be limited to, 18 USC 1001 and
42 USC 6928), I certify that the
information contained in or accompanying
this document is true, accurate and
complete.
[[Page 50244]]
As to the (those) identified section(s)
of this document for which I cannot
personally verify its (their) truth and
accuracy, I certify as the company
official having supervisory
responsibility for the persons who,
acting under my direct instructions,
made the verification that this
information is true, accurate and
complete.
In the event that any of this information
is determined by EPA in its sole
discretion to be false, inaccurate or
incomplete, and upon conveyance of this
fact to the company, I recognize and
agree that this exclusion of waste will
be void as if it never had effect or to
the extent directed by EPA and that the
company will be liable for any actions
taken in contravention of the company's
RCRA and CERCLA obligations premised
upon the company's reliance on the void
exclusion.
10. Notification Requirements: Texas
Eastman must provide a one-time written
notification to any State Regulatory
Agency to which or through which the
delisted waste described above will be
transported for disposal at least 60
days prior to the commencement of such
activities. Failure to provide such a
notification will result in a violation
of the delisting petition and a possible
revocation of the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Texas Eastman........................ Longview, Texas........ Incinerator ash (at a maximum generation of
7,000 cubic yards per calendar year) generated
from the incineration of sludge from the
wastewater treatment plant (EPA Hazardous Waste
No. K009 and K010, and that is disposed of in
Subtitle D landfills after September 25, 1996.
Texas Eastman must implement a testing program
that meets conditions found in Table 1. Wastes
Excluded From Non-Specific Sources for the
petition to be valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Wastes Excluded From Commercial Chemical Products, Off-Specification Species, Container Residues, and
Soil Residues Thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Texas Eastman........................ Longview, Texas........ Incinerator ash (at a maximum generation of
7,000 cubic yards per calendar year) generated
from the incineration of sludge from the
wastewater treatment plant (EPA Hazardous Waste
No. U001, U002, U003, U019, U028, U031, U037,
U044, U056, U069, U070, U107, U108, U112, U113,
U115, U117, U122, U140, U147, U151, U154, U159,
U161, U169, U190, U196, U211, U213, U226, U239,
and U359, and that is disposed of in Subtitle D
landfills after September 25, 1996. Texas
Eastman must implement the testing program
described in Table 1. Wastes Excluded From Non-
Specific Sources for the petition to be valid.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-24588 Filed 9-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P