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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW-FRL-6124-3]

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 grant a petition submitted by

McDonnell Douglas Corporation (McDonnell Douglas), a wholly owned

subsidiary of The Boeing Corporation, to exclude (or delist) certain

solid wastes generated by its U.S. Air Force Plant Number 3 (Air Force

Plant No. 3) Tulsa, Oklahoma, 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). This petition was

submitted under Sec. 260.20(a), which allows any person to petition the

Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through

266, 268 and 273, and under Sec. 260.22(a), which specifically provides

generators the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a

waste on a ``generator specific'' basis from the hazardous waste lists.

This proposed decision is based on an evaluation of waste-specific

information provided by the petitioner. If this proposed decision is

finalized, the petitioned waste will be excluded from the requirements

of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA).

DATES: The EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision.

Comments will be accepted until August 28, 1998. Comments postmarked

after the close of the comment period will be stamped ``late,'' and

will not be considered in formulating a final decision.

Any person may request a hearing on this proposed decision by

filing a request with Acting Director, Robert Hannesschlager,

Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, whose address appears

below, by July 29, 1998. The request must contain the information

prescribed in Sec. 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Send three copies of your comments. Two copies should be

sent to the 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

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, 707 North Robinson

Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102. Identify your comments at the

top with this regulatory docket number: ``F-98-OKDEL-AIRFORCEPLANT3.''

Requests for a hearing should be addressed to the Acting Director,

Robert Hannesschlager, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division

(6PD), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas

75202.

The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule is located at the

Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

Texas 75202 and is available for viewing

[[Page 37798]]

in the Freedom of Information Act Reviewing Room on the 7th Floor 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning

this notice, contact David Vogler, Multimedia Planning and Permitting

Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, TX 75202, (214)665-7428.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Authority

On January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim final

regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA, EPA published an amended

list of hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific sources. This

list has been amended several times, and is published in Secs. 261.31

and 261.32. These wastes are listed as hazardous because they typically

and frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous

wastes identified in subpart C of part 261 (i.e., ignitability,

corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or meet the criteria for listing

contained in Sec. 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3).

Individual waste streams may vary however, depending on raw

materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste

that is described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a

specific waste from an individual facility meeting the listing

description may not be. For this reason, Secs. 260.20 and 260.22

provide an exclusion procedure, allowing persons to demonstrate that a

specific waste from a particular generating facility should not be

regulated as a hazardous waste.

To have their wastes excluded, petitioners must show that wastes

generated at their facilities do not meet any of the criteria for which

the wastes were listed. See Sec. 260.22(a) and the background documents

for the listed wastes. In addition, the Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 require the EPA to consider any factors

(including additional constituents) other than those for which the

waste was listed, if there is a reasonable basis to believe that such

additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. Accordingly,

a petitioner also must demonstrate that the waste does not exhibit any

of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability, reactivity,

corrosivity, and toxicity), and must present sufficient information for

the EPA to determine whether the waste contains any other toxicants at

hazardous levels. See Sec. 260.22(a), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and the

background documents for the listed wastes. Although wastes which are

``delisted'' (i.e., excluded) have been evaluated to determine whether

or not they exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous waste,

generators remain obligated under RCRA to determine whether or not

their waste remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste

characteristics.

In addition, mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes are also

considered hazardous wastes as are wastes derived from the treatment,

storage, or disposal of listed hazardous waste. See

Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i), referred to as the ``mixture'' and

``derived-from'' rules, respectively. Such wastes are also eligible for

exclusion and remain hazardous wastes until excluded. On December 6,

1991, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated

the ``mixture/derived from'' rules and remanded them to the EPA on

procedural grounds. See Shell Oil Co. v. EPA, 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir.

1991). On March 3, 1992, EPA reinstated the mixture and derived-from

rules, and solicited comments on other ways to regulate waste mixtures

and residues (57 FR 7628). These rules became final on October 30, 1992

(57 FR 49278). These references should be consulted for more

information regarding mixtures and derived from wastes.

B. Approach Used to Evaluate This Petition

McDonnell Douglas' Air Force Plant No. 3 petition requests a one-

time delisting for listed hazardous wastes. In making the initial

delisting determination, the EPA evaluated the petitioned wastes

against the listing criteria and factors cited in Secs. 261.11(a)(1),

261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, the EPA agreed with the

petitioner that the waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original

listing criteria. (If the EPA had found, based on this review, that the

wastes remained hazardous based on the factors for which the wastes

were originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny the petition.)

The EPA then evaluated the wastes with respect to other factors or

criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that

such additional factors could cause the wastes to be hazardous. The EPA

considered whether the wastes are acutely toxic, the toxicity of the

constituents, the concentration of the constituents in the wastes,

their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in

the environment once released from the wastes, plausible and specific

types of management of the petitioned wastes, the quantities of wastes

generated, and waste variability.

For this delisting determination, the EPA used such information

gathered to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground water,

surface water and air) for hazardous constituents present in the

petitioned wastes. The EPA determined that disposal in a Subtitle D

(solid, nonhazardous waste) landfill is the most reasonable, worst-case

disposal scenario for McDonnell Douglas' petitioned wastes, and that

the major exposure route of concern would be ingestion of contaminated

ground water. Therefore, the EPA used a particular fate and transport

model, the EPA Composite Model for Landfills (EPACML), to predict the

maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous constituents that may be

released from the petitioned wastes after disposal and to determine the

potential impact of the disposal of McDonnell Douglas' petitioned

wastes on human health and the environment. Specifically, the EPA used

the maximum estimated waste volumes and the maximum reported extract

concentrations as inputs to estimate the constituent concentrations in

the ground water at a hypothetical receptor well downgradient from the

disposal site. The calculated receptor well concentrations (referred to

as compliance-point concentrations) were then compared directly to the

current Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) promulgated under the Safe

Drinking Water Act (SWDA) or health-based levels derived from verified

Reference Doses (RfDs). The values used for lead and copper are action

levels for treatment of a water supply in lieu of an MCL (40 CFR

141.80).

The EPA believes that this fate and transport model represents a

reasonable worst-case scenario for disposal of the petitioned wastes in

a landfill, and that a reasonable worst-case scenario is appropriate

when evaluating whether a waste should be relieved of the protective

management constraints of RCRA Subtitle C. The use of a reasonable

worst-case scenario results in conservative values for the compliance-

point concentrations and gives a high degree of confidence that the

waste, once removed from hazardous waste regulation, will not pose a

threat to human health or the environment. In most cases, because a

delisted waste is no longer subject to hazardous waste control (unless

conditionally delisted),

[[Page 37799]]

the EPA is generally unable to predict, and does not presently control,

how a waste will be managed after delisting. Therefore, EPA normally

believes that it is inappropriate to consider extensive site-specific

factors when applying the fate and transport model. If however,

conditions contained in a delisting indicate that it is necessary to

consider site specific factors or otherwise indicate that the model is

inappropriate, EPA may consider these factors in applying the model.

For modeling purposes it is assumed that a Subtitle D landfill will be

unlined.

The EPA also considers the applicability of ground water monitoring

data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this case, the

EPA determined that it would be appropriate to review ground water

monitoring data since the petitioned wastes generated at McDonnell

Douglas' facility were disposed of as part of an onsite surface

impoundment which was partitioned by dikes into three lagoons which

were closed as a single RCRA landfill. The analytical results from a

combination of up to eighteen monitoring wells dating from 1981 until

1997 was reviewed. The data indicated that there has been no

significant impact to the ground water from the closed landfill. The

evaluation of this information is another indication that the waste has

been stabilized and does not leach hazardous constituents in

concentrations that are significant to human health and the

environment.

From the evaluation of McDonnell Douglas' delisting petition, a

list of constituents was developed 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.

McDonnell Douglas' exclusion (if granted) would be contingent upon

the facility conducting stabilization activities on approximately 5,000

cubic yards of the 85,000 cubic yards of petitioned waste present in

the three lagoons jointly closed as a RCRA landfill. Subsequent

verification testing of representative samples of the newly stabilized

waste would also be required. Analytical data from cores taken from the

landfill indicate that about 5,000 cubic yards of waste was not

stabilized during the closure process and will need to be stabilized

before being transported offsite for disposal in a Subtitle D landfill.

These wastes are presently located in the bottom one to three feet of

lower portion of the northwest lagoon which is a portion of the surface

impoundments closed as a landfill at the Tulsa Air Force Plant No. 3

Facility. The unstabilized wastes are easily identified by color,

texture, and general physical appearance. This testing would be

necessary to verify that the stabilization system is operating as

demonstrated in the petition submitted on November 7, 1997.

Specifically, the verification testing requirements of the conditional

exclusion (if granted), would be implemented to demonstrate that the

stabilization process will generate nonhazardous wastes (i.e., wastes

that meet the EPA's verification testing conditions).

Analytical data submitted from cores of the petitioned wastes

located in the upper portion of the northwest lagoon, the northeast

lagoon, and the south lagoon of the landfill indicated that the waste

in those areas was previously stabilized and therefore would not

require additional verification testing. The EPA's proposed decision to

delist wastes from the Air Force Plant No. 3 facility is based on the

information submitted in support of today's rule, i.e., description of

the historical wastewater treatment system and analytical data from the

Tulsa facility's closed landfill.

Finally, the HSWA specifically require the EPA to provide notice

and an opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final

exclusion. Thus, a final decision will not be made until all timely

public comments (including those at public hearings, if any) on today's

proposal are addressed.

II. Disposition of Delisting Petition

Air Force Plant No. 3, McDonnell Douglas Corporation, a wholly

owned subsidiary of The Boeing Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74115

A. Petition for Exclusion

McDonnell Douglas petitioned the EPA for a one-time exclusion for

85,000 cubic yards of stabilized and solidified waste located in three

surface impoundments that were closed as a single RCRA landfill unit in

1989 at the U. S. Air Force Plant No. 3, located in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Approximately 5,000 cubic yards of the 85,000 cubic yards of petitioned

wastes were not previously stabilized and would be required to undergo

stabilization and verification testing. The petitioned wastes were

generated as a part of the facility's wastewater treatment process

which operated from 1953 to 1989. The resulting wastes are presently

listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019. The petitioned wastes are

believed to also have very small amounts of wastes presently classified

as F002, F003, and F005. The listed constituents of concern for these

waste codes are listed in Table 1.

Table 1.--Hazardous Waste Codes Associated With Wastewater Streams

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

Waste code Basis for characteristics/listing

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

F019................... Hexavalent Chromium. Cyanide (complexed).

F002................... Tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene,

methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,

1,1,2-trichloroethane, chlorobenzene, 1,1,2-

trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane, ortho-

dichlorobenzene, trichlorofluoromethane.

F003................... Xylene, acetone, ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene,

ethyl ether, methyl isobutyl ketone, n-butyl

alcohol, cyclohexanone, methanol.

F005................... Toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon disulfide,

isobutanol, pyridine, benzene, 2-

ethoxyethanol, 2-nitropropane.

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

McDonnell Douglas (Air Force Plant No. 3) petitioned the EPA to

exclude the stabilized treatment wastes because it does not believe

that the petitioned wastes meet the criteria for which they were

listed. McDonnell Douglas further believes that the wastes are not

hazardous for any other reason (i.e., there are no additional

constituents or factors that could cause the wastes to be hazardous).

Review of this petition included consideration of the original listing

criteria, as well as the additional factors required by the HSWA. See

section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)-(4).

Today's proposal to grant this petition for delisting is the result of

the EPA's evaluation of Air Force Plant No.3's petition as submitted by

McDonnell Douglas Corporation.

B. Background

On November 7, 1997, McDonnell Douglas petitioned the EPA to grant

a one-time exclusion from the lists of hazardous waste contained in

Secs. 261.31

[[Page 37800]]

and 261.32, a one-time volume of stabilized and solidified wastewater

treatment plant sludges which were disposed of in the facility's

wastewater surface impoundments which have since been jointly closed as

a RCRA landfill unit in accordance with a closure and post-closure plan

approved by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ).

The wastewater treatment sludges were stabilized with fly ash and then

capped with a RCRA cap. Specifically, in its petition, McDonnell

Douglas requested that the EPA grant an exclusion for 85,000 cubic

yards of stabilized wastewater treatment sludge. The facility

characterized the petitioned waste as stabilized with the exception of

about 5,000 cubic yards which will require stabilization and

verification testing.

In support of its petition, McDonnell Douglas submitted: (1)

Descriptions of its wastewater treatment processes and the activities

associated with petitioned wastes; (2) results of the total constituent

list for 40 CFR part 264, Appendix IX volatiles, semivolatiles, metals,

pesticides, herbicides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), furans, and

dioxins; (3) results of the constituent list for Appendix IX on

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract for

identified constituents; (4) results for total sulfide; (5) results for

total cyanide; (6) results for pH; (7) results of the Multiple

Extraction Procedure (MEP) for acidic, neutral, and basic extractions;

(8) results of ground water monitoring; and (9) results of surface

impoundment waste analysis for constituents of concern.

Air Force Plant No. 3 is an inactive plant that was used for

maintenance operations on military and commercial aircraft, as well as

for manufacturing aerospace and aircraft products. The bulk of the

petitioned waste was generated by treatment of wastewater generated by

electroplating and metal finishing operations. Analysis indicates that

the plant may have treated minor amounts of fuels. Wastes were

collected in two separate sewer systems: acid-chrome and alkali-chrome.

Wastes were then directed to the onsite industrial wastewater treatment

plant. Cyanide was oxidized using chlorine. The chromic wastewater was

treated by reduction with sulfur dioxide. The pH was controlled using

caustic soda, sulfuric acid, and carbon dioxide. Ferrous sulfate was

fed into the clarifier to flocculate solids. The resulting wastewater

treatment sludges accumulated in sludge sumps and then were pumped

through a pipeline into the system of surface impoundments. In 1989,

most of the sludges in the impoundments were stabilized and solidified

using fly ash and some clay. Later borings indicated that some of the

waste in the lower portion in the northwest section of the impoundments

was not completely stabilized. McDonnell Douglas wants to similarly

stabilize this waste and delist all waste in all of the impoundments

closed as a single RCRA landfill. The waste will then be transported

offsite and disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill. It is planned to

clean close the Air Force Plant No. 3 landfill under ODEQ authority.

McDonnell Douglas developed a list of constituents of concern from

comparing a list of all raw materials used in the plant that could

potentially appear in the petitioned waste with those found in 40 CFR

part 264. McDonnell Douglas analyzed two composite samples for the

total concentrations (i.e., mass of a particular constituent per mass

of waste) of the volatiles and semivolatiles, metals, herbicides,

pesticides, PCBs, and furans from Appendix IX. These two samples (NW-37

and SE-37) were analyzed for the comprehensive list in order to confirm

that there were no other constituents of concern in the surface

impoundments.

Twenty-one (21) composite samples were taken from the closed

landfill unit. Five of these samples were from the northwest lagoon of

the unit where the sludges that are not completely stabilized are

located. All samples were analyzed for constituents of concern and were

also analyzed to determine whether the waste exhibited ignitable,

corrosive, or reactive properties as defined under 40 CFR 261.21,

261.22, and 261.23, including analysis for total constituent

concentrations of cyanide and sulfide. These samples were also analyzed

for TCLP concentrations (i.e., mass of a particular constituent per

unit volume of extract) of all the volatiles, semivolatiles, and metals

identified as constituents of concern. The MEP was performed on four

samples to test the ability to stabilize eighteen (18) different metals

at three different pH's. The procedure was run at three different pH

values (2.88, 7, and 13 Standard Units) to determine if a change in pH

might significantly alter the leachate concentrations. Historical

analytical results from ground water monitoring wells was also

submitted for review.

C. EPA Analysis

McDonnell Douglas used SW-846 Methods 8260, 8270, 6010, 7196A,

7471, to quantify the total constituent concentrations of volatiles and

semivolatiles (excluding PCBs, pesticides, herbicides) metals, and

dioxins/furans. McDonnell Douglas used SW-846 Methods 9045, 9030A, 9012

to quantify pH, total sulfide, and total cyanide. McDonnell Douglas

used SW-846 Methods 8260, 8270, 6010, 7196A, 7470 to quantify the

constituents from the TCLP extract. The petitioned waste does not meet

the definitions for reactivity and corrosivity as defined by

Secs. 261.22 and 261.23. Tables 2A and 2B present the maximum total

constituent and leachate concentrations for the stabilized waste.

Tables 3A and 3B present the maximum total constituent and leachate

concentrations for the unstabilized sludge waste samples from the

bottom of the northwest lagoon of the unit.

McDonnell Douglas calculated, based on a one-time removal and

addition of stabilization agents, the maximum petitioned waste to be

excluded will be 85,000 cubic yards of stabilized waste.

The EPA reviews a petitioner's estimates and, on occasion, has

requested a petitioner to reevaluate the estimated waste volume. The

EPA accepted McDonnell Douglas' certified estimates. The EPA does not

generally verify submitted test data before proposing delisting

decisions. The sworn affidavit submitted with this petition binds the

petitioner to present truthful and accurate results. The EPA, however,

has maintained a spot-check sampling and analysis program to verify the

representative nature of the data for some percentage of the submitted

petitions. A spot-check visit to a selected facility may be initiated

before finalizing a delisting petition or after granting an exclusion.

Table 2A.--Maximum Organic Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations

\1\

[Stabilized Wastewater Treatment Sludge]

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

Total

constituent Leachate

Constituents analyses (mg/ analyses

kg) (mg/l)

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

Acetone...................................... 0.53 NA

Benzene...................................... 0.003 <0.1

Ethylbenzene................................. 0.004 NA

Toluene...................................... 0.035 NA

Xylenes...................................... 0.019 NA

Phenol....................................... 0.39 NA

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

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

specified in the table.

\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.

NA Denotes that the constituent was not analyzed.

[[Page 37801]]

Table 2B.--Maximum Inorganic Total Constituent and Leachate

Concentrations \1\

[Stabilized Wastewater Treatment Sludge]

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

Total

constituent Leachate

Constituents analyses (mg/ analyses

kg) (mg/l)

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

Antimony..................................... 0.42 0.0145

Arsenic...................................... 31.7 0.057

Barium....................................... 2860 3.4

Beryllium.................................... 2.4 0.0195

Cadmium...................................... 39.8 0.323

Chromium (Total)............................. 9710 9.79

Chromium (Hexavalent)........................ 0.42 0.06

Cobalt....................................... 16.1 0.0673

Copper....................................... 163 0.301

Lead......................................... 89 0.0422

Mercury...................................... 0.09 0.00025

Nickel....................................... 64.4 0.28

Selenium..................................... 11.3 0.0691

Silver....................................... 0.4 0.03

Thallium..................................... 0.47 0.005

Tin.......................................... 35.9 <0.014

Vanadium..................................... 228 0.141

Zinc......................................... 229 0.519

Sulfide (Total).............................. <50 NA

Cyanide (Total).............................. 7 NA

pH (Standard Units).......................... 6.19 --

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

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

specified in the table.

\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.

NA Denotes that the constituent was not analyzed.

Table 3A.--Maximum Organic Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations

\1\ Unstabilized Wastewater Treatment Sludge

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

Leachate

Constituents Total Constituent Analyses

Analyses (mg/kg) (mg/l)

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

Acetone.............................. 0.15 NA

Benzene.............................. 0.185 <0.1

Ethylbenzene......................... 158 NA

Toluene.............................. 3000 NA

Xylenes.............................. 792 NA

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene............. 0.212 NA

Tetrachloroethene.................... 0.64 <0.1

Trichloroethylene.................... 1090 17.3

m-Cresol............................. <0.38 0.09

p-Cresol............................. <0.38 0.09

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

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

specified in the table.

\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.

NA Denotes that the constituent was not analyzed.

D. EPA Evaluation

The EPA considered the appropriateness of alternative waste

management scenarios for McDonnell Douglas' stabilized wastewater

treatment waste from the closed impoundments. The EPA decided, based on

the information provided in the petition, that disposal of the

petitioned waste in a municipal or industrial solid waste landfill is

the most reasonable, worst-case scenario.

Table 3B.--Maximum Inorganic Total Constituent and Leachate

Concentrations \1\ Unstabilized Wastewater Treatment Sludge

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

Leachate

Constituents Total Constituent Analyses Analyses (mg/

(mg/kg) l)

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

Antimony.................... 5.4....................... 0.0952

Arsenic..................... 43........................ 0.0873

Barium...................... 3060...................... 3.58

Beryllium................... 2.3....................... 0.0093

Cadmium..................... 52.2...................... 0.411

Chromium (Total)............ 3820...................... 1.36

Chromium (Hexavalent)....... <0.25..................... <0.05

Cobalt...................... 19.4...................... 0.0478

Copper...................... 157....................... 0.2

Lead........................ 220....................... 0.0737

Mercury..................... 0.25...................... 0.00015

Nickel...................... 40.7...................... 0.21

Selenium.................... 5.8....................... 0.028

Silver...................... 1.2....................... <0.001

Thallium.................... 0.3....................... <0.005

Tin......................... 8.4....................... <0.014

Vanadium.................... 138....................... 0.111

Zinc........................ 535....................... 1.25

[[Page 37802]]

Sulfide (Total)............. <50....................... NA

Cyanide (Total)............. 4......................... NA

pH (Standard Units)......... 06.89-9.43 range.......... ..............

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

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

specified in the table.

\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.

NA Denotes that the constituent was not analyzed.

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 the petitioned

wastes using the modified EPACML which predicts the potential for

ground water contamination from wastes that are landfilled. See 56 FR

32993 (July 18, 1991), 56 FR 67197 (December 30, 1991) and the RCRA

public docket for these notices for a detailed description of the

EPACML model, the disposal assumptions, and the modifications made for

delisting. This model, which includes both unsaturated and saturated

zone transport modules, was used to predict reasonable worst-case

contaminant levels in ground water at a compliance point (i.e., a

receptor well serving as a drinking-water supply). Specifically, the

model estimated the dilution/attenuation factor (DAF) resulting from

subsurface processes such as three-dimensional dispersion and dilution

from ground water recharge for a specific volume of waste.

For the evaluation of McDonnell Douglas' petitioned wastes, the EPA

used the EPACML to evaluate the mobility of the hazardous constituents

detected in the extract of samples of McDonnell Douglas' Stabilized

Wastewater Treatment Sludge. Typically, the EPA uses the maximum annual

waste volume to derive a petition-specific DAF. The DAFs are currently

calculated assuming an ongoing process generates wastes for 20 years.

Since the petitioned waste would be a one-time disposal, the waste

volume is divided by twenty to correctly determine a DAF. Therefore,

the DAF for the waste volume of 85,000 cubic yards is 56.

The EPA's evaluation of the stabilized wastewater treatment sludges

using a DAF of 56, a maximum one-time disposal waste volume estimate of

85,000 cubic yards, and the maximum reported TCLP concentrations (see

Tables 2A and 2B), yielded compliance point concentrations (see Tables

4A and 4B) that are below the current health-based levels except for

the constituent cadmium which is discussed below.

Table 4A.--EPACML: Calculated Compliance-Point Organic Concentrations

Stabilized Waste

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

Compliance Point Levels of

Organic Constituents Concentrations Concern \2\

\1\ (mg/l) (mg/l)

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

Acetone................................ 0.00946 4.0

Benzene................................ 0.0000536 0.005

Ethyl Benzene.......................... 0.0000714 0.7

Toluene................................ 0.000625 1.0

Xylenes................................ 0.000339 10

Phenols................................ 0.00696 20

Cyanide................................ 0.125 0.2

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

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

specified in the table.

\1\ Using the maximum TCLP leachate level from Table 2A and based on a

DAF of 56 calculated using the EPACML for a one-time volume of 85,000

cu. yards. Waste concentrations in the northwest lagoon were not

included as the bottom waste must be stabilized to be excluded.

\2\ See Docket Report on Health-Based Levels and Solubilities Used in

the Evaluation of Delisting Petitions, December 1994 located in the

RCRA public docket for today's notice.

In Table 4A, the maximum reported leachate concentrations of the

organic constituents detected in the stabilized waste are compared with

the levels of concern. For this comparison, EPA conservatively used

available total values and assumed the total concentration would leach.

The maximum reported leachate concentrations of acetone, benzene,

ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene yielded compliance point

concentrations below the health-based levels used in delisting

decision-making. The EPA did not evaluate the mobility of the remaining

organic constituents (e.g., trans-1,2-dichloroethene,

tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, m-cresol, and

p-cresol) from McDonnell Douglas' stabilized waste because they were

not detected in the leachate or total chemical analysis using the

appropriate analytical test methods. The EPA believes that it is

inappropriate to evaluate nondetectable concentrations of a constituent

of concern in its delisting modeling efforts if the nondetectable value

was obtained using the appropriate analytical method. If a constituent

cannot be detected (when using the appropriate analytical method with

an adequate detection limit), the EPA, for delisting purposes, assumes

that the constituent is not present and therefore does not present a

threat to human health or the environment. In the delisting program EPA

believes it is inappropriate to evaluate constituents undetected in the

waste samples. This procedure is consistent with other programs.

In Table 4B, the maximum reported or calculated leachate

concentrations of the inorganic constituents detected in the stabilized

waste are compared with the levels of regulatory concern. The maximum

reported or calculated

[[Page 37803]]

leachate concentrations of antimony, barium, beryllium, total chromium,

hexavalent chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium,

silver, thallium, vanadium, and zinc yielded compliance point

concentrations below the health-based levels used in the delisting

decision-making. The EPA did not evaluate the mobility of the inorganic

constituent tin from McDonnell Douglas' stabilized waste because it was

not detected in the leachate using the appropriate analytical test

methods (see Table 2B). The maximum reported leachate concentration for

a single sample of cadmium yielded a calculated compliance point

concentration (0.00577 mg/l) slightly above the health-based level

(0.005 mg/l) used in the delisting decision-making process.

The cadmium value (0.00577 mg/l) represents the calculated leachate

concentrations of cadmium at a theoretical downgradient ground water

monitoring well using the EPACML model and a concentration value of

0.323 mg/l TCLP from one stabilized waste sample. This value was the

highest concentration identified for the sixteen (16) TCLP analyses or

the eighty-one (81) MEP analyses completed for cadmium. The 0.323 mg/l

value was the first extraction for an acidic extraction. The second

extract from the same sample yielded a value of 0.213 mg/l which would

in turn produce a calculated compliance point concentration of 0.0038

mg/l which is below the level of regulatory concern.

Table 4B.--EPACML: Calculated Inorganic Compliance-Point Concentrations

Stabilized Waste

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

Compliance Point Levels of

Inorganic Constituents Concentrations \1\ Concern \2\

(mg/l) (mg/l)

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

Antimony.............................. 0.000259 0.006

Arsenic............................... 0.001 0.05

Barium................................ 0.0607 2.0

Beryllium............................. 0.000348 0.004

Cadmium............................... 0.00577 0.005

Chromium (total)...................... 0.175 37

Chromium, hexavalent.................. 0.00107 0.1

Cobalt................................ 0.0012 2.1

Copper................................ 0.0054 1.3

Lead.................................. 0.00075 0.015

Mercury............................... 0.00000446 0.002

Nickel................................ l0.005 0.1

Selenium.............................. 0.00123 0.05

Silver................................ 0.000536 0.2

Thallium.............................. 0.0000893 0.002

Vanadium.............................. 0.00252 0.2

Zinc.................................. 0.00927 10.0

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

\1\ Using the maximum TCLP leachate level from Table 2B and based on a

DAF of 56 calculated using the EPACML for an one-time volume of 85,000

cu. yards. Waste concentrations in the northwest lagoon were not

included as the bottom waste must be stabilized to be excluded.

\2\ See Docket Report on Health-Based Levels and Solubilities Used in

the Evaluation of Delisting Petitions, December 1994 located in the

RCRA public docket for today's notice.

The concentration values for this sample continued a steady decline

to 0.0022 mg/l for the ninth extraction in the MEP. The steady decline

in concentration is an indication that the waste will not leach more

hazardous constituents over time and therefore is stabilized. The next

highest cadmium TCLP or MEP value for another sample of stabilized

waste is a concentration of 0.14 mg/l which would yield a compliance

point concentration of 0.0025 mg/l compared to the level of regulatory

concern value of 0.005 mg/l. This sample and all other stabilized

samples (14 samples, 86 analyses) of stabilized waste exhibit lower

cadmium values. The concentration value for the 95 per cent upper

confidence level of the mean is calculated at a concentration of 0.0236

mg/l which yielded a calculated compliance point concentration of

0.00042 mg/l which is well below the health-based level of 0.005 mg/l

for cadmium used in the delisting decision-making. Ground water

monitoring data submitted by the facility also indicated that the waste

was not leaching as constituents of concern have not been detected by

the monitoring program in concentrations of regulatory concern.

Therefore, after further detailed evaluation, EPA does not consider the

cadmium concentrations to be above health-based levels for purposes of

delisting.

The EPA concluded, after reviewing McDonnell Douglas' 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 McDonnell Douglas' wastes. In addition, on the basis

of explanations and analytical data provided by McDonnell Douglas,

pursuant to Sec. 260.22, the EPA concludes that the stabilized

petitioned wastes do not exhibit any of the characteristics of

ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. See Secs. 261.21, 261.22, and

261.23, respectively.

During the evaluation of McDonnell Douglas' petition, the EPA also

considered the potential impact of the petitioned wastes via non-ground

water routes (i.e., air emission and surface runoff). With regard to

airborne dispersion in particular, the EPA believes that exposure to

airborne contaminants from the petitioned wastes is unlikely; no

appreciable air releases are likely from the petitioned wastes under

any likely disposal conditions. The EPA evaluated, however, the

potential hazards resulting from the unlikely scenario of airborne

exposure to hazardous constituents released from the petitioned wastes

in an open landfill. The results of this worst case analysis indicated

that there is no substantial present or potential hazard to human

health from airborne exposure to constituents from the stabilized

wastes. A description of the EPA's assessment of the potential impact

of McDonnell Douglas' wastes, regarding airborne dispersion of waste

contaminants, is presented in the RCRA public docket for today's

proposed rule.

The EPA also considered the potential impact of the petitioned

wastes via a

[[Page 37804]]

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 run-

off 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 wastes 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, the EPA evaluated the potential

impacts on surface water if McDonnell Douglas' waste were released from

a municipal solid waste landfill through runoff and erosion. See the

RCRA public docket for today's proposed rule. The estimated levels of

the hazardous constituents of concern in surface water would be well

below health-based levels for human health, as well as below the EPA

Chronic Water Quality Criteria for aquatic organisms (USEPA, OWRS,

1987). The EPA, therefore, concluded that McDonnell Douglas' stabilized

waste is not a substantial present or potential hazard to human health

and the environment via the surface water exposure pathway.

E. Conclusion

The EPA believes that the descriptions of the McDonnell Douglas'

chemical hazardous waste process and analytical characterization, in

conjunction with the proposed verification testing requirements (as

discussed later in this notice), provide a reasonable basis to grant

McDonnell Douglas' petition for a standard one-time exclusion of the

stabilized waste and a conditional one-time exclusion for the

unstabilized wastes in the bottom of the northwest lagoon of the

landfill unit. The EPA believes the data submitted in support of the

petition show McDonnell Douglas' process can render the wastes in the

northwest quadrant of the surface impoundment which was closed as a

landfill non-hazardous. The EPA has reviewed the sampling procedures

used by McDonnell Douglas and has determined they satisfy EPA criteria

for collecting representative samples of the variations in constituent

concentrations in the petitioned waste. The data submitted in support

of the petition show that constituents in McDonnell Douglas' stabilized

waste are presently below health-based levels used in the delisting

decision-making. The EPA believes that McDonnell Douglas has

successfully shown that the stabilized waste is non-hazardous. The EPA,

therefore, proposes to grant a standard one-time exclusion to the

McDonnell Douglas Corporation, located in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for the

stabilized waste in the landfill and a conditional one-time exclusion

for the unstabilized waste in the bottom of the northwest lagoon of the

unit as described in its petition. The EPA's decision to exclude this

waste is based on descriptions the historical wastewater treatment

activities associated with the petitioned waste and characterization of

the stabilized and unstabilized waste. If the proposed rule is

finalized, the petitioned wastes will no longer be subject to

regulation under parts 262 through 268 and the permitting standards of

part 270.

F. Verification Testing Conditions

(1) Delisting Levels: All leachable concentrations for the

following constituents in the approximately 5,000 cubic yards of

unstabilized waste in the bottom portion of the northwest lagoon of

the surface impoundments closed as a landfill must not exceed the

following levels (ppm) after the stabilization process is completed

as according to Condition (3). Constituents must be measured in the

waste leachate by the method specified in 40 CFR 261.24. Cyanide

extractions must be conducted using distilled water in the place of

the leaching media per 40 CFR 261.24.

(A) Inorganic Constituents

Antimony-0.336; Cadmium-0.280; Hexavalent Chromium-5.0; Lead-

0.84; Cyanide-11.2;

(B) Organic Constituents

Benzene-0.28; Ethylbenzene-39.2; Toluene-56.; Xylenes-560.;

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene-5.6; Tetrachloroethylene-0.280;

Trichloroethylene-0.280

The approximately 80,000 cubic yards of previously stabilized

waste in the upper northwest lagoon, entire northeast lagoon, and

entire south lagoon of the surface impoundments which were closed as

a landfill requires no verification testing.

This paragraph provides the levels of constituents for which

McDonnell Douglas must test the leachate from the wastes in the bottom

of the northwest lagoon after completion of a stabilization process

similar to that was used in other portions of the surface impoundments

which were closed as a single landfill. These are the levels below

which this waste would be considered non-hazardous and for which the

Agency is proposing to grant a one time conditional exclusion. The EPA

selected the set of inorganic and organic constituents specified after

reviewing information about the composition of the waste, descriptions

of McDonnell Douglas' historical wastewater treatment process, previous

test data provided for the waste, and the respective health-based

levels (HBL) used in delisting decision-making. The EPA established the

proposed delisting levels for this paragraph by back-calculating the

Maximum Allowable Leachate (MALs) concentrations from the health-based

levels for the constituents of concern using the EPACML chemical-

specific DAF of 56 (See, previous discussions in Section D--Agency

Evaluation) i.e., MAL = HBL x DAF). These delisting levels correspond

to the allowable levels measured in the TCLP extract of the waste. The

TCLP for the cyanide constituent would be modified to test the waste by

substitution of deionized water for the extraction fluid. The

hexavalent chromium concentration was set a value not to exceed 5.0 mg/

l TCLP concentration in order not to exceed regulatory levels found in

40 CFR 261.24. The modeled value would be at a concentration of 5.6 mg/

l TCLP concentration. The stabilized wastes in the landfill have been

demonstrated as meeting the delisting levels and therefore will require

no further verification testing. A standard one-time exclusion for

those wastes is proposed.

(2) Waste Holding and Handling: McDonnell Douglas must store as

hazardous all stabilized waste from the bottom portion of the

northwest lagoon area of the closed landfill as generated until

verification testing as specified in Condition (3), is completed and

valid analyses demonstrate that condition (1) is satisfied. If the

levels of constituents measured in the samples of the stabilized

waste do not exceed the levels set forth in Condition (1), then the

waste is nonhazardous and may be managed and disposed of in a

Subtitle D landfill in accordance with all applicable solid waste

regulations. If constituent levels in a sample exceed any of the

delisting levels set in Condition (1), the waste generated during

the time period corresponding to this sample must be restabilized

until delisting levels are met or managed and disposed of in

accordance with Subtitle C of RCRA.

The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that any unstabilized

waste located in the bottom of the northwest lagoon area of the closed

surface impoundments which might contain

[[Page 37805]]

hazardous levels of inorganic and organic constituents are managed and

disposed of in accordance with Subtitle C of RCRA. Holding the

unstabilized waste from the northwest area until characterization is

complete will protect against improper handling of hazardous material.

If the EPA determines that the data collected under this condition do

not support the data provided for the petition or McDonnell Douglas is

not meeting the terms of its exclusion, the exclusion will not cover

the petitioned wastes.

(3) Verification Testing Requirements: Sample collection and

analyses, including quality control procedures, must be performed

according to SW-846 methodologies. McDonnell Douglas must stabilize

the previously unstabilized waste from the bottom portion of the

northwest lagoon of the surface impoundment (which was closed as a

landfill) using fly ash, kiln dust or similar accepted materials in

batches of 500 cubic yards or less. McDonnell Douglas must analyze

one composite sample from each batch of 500 cubic yards or less. A

minimum of four grab samples must be taken from each waste pile (or

other designated holding area) of stabilized waste generated from

each batch run. Each composited batch sample must be analyzed, prior

to disposal of the waste in the batch represented by that sample,

for constituents listed in Condition (1). There are no verification

testing requirements for the stabilized wastes in the upper portions

of the northwest lagoon, the entire northeast lagoon, and the entire

south lagoon of the surface impoundments which were closed as a

landfill.

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If McDonnell Douglas

significantly changes the stabilization process established under

Condition (3) (e.g., use of new stabilization agents), McDonnell

Douglas must notify the Agency in writing. After written approval by

EPA, McDonnell Douglas may handle the wastes generated as non-

hazardous, if the wastes meet the delisting levels set in Condition

(1).

(5) Data Submittals: Records of operating conditions and

analytical data from Condition (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

Oklahoma, or both, and be 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 Sec. 1001 and 42 USC

Sec. 6928), I certify that the information contained in or

accompanying this document is true, accurate and complete.

As to the (those) identified section(s) of this document for

which I cannot personally verify its (their) truth and accuracy, I

certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility

for the persons who, acting under my direct instructions, made the

verification that this information is true, accurate and complete.

In the event that any of this information is determined by EPA

in its sole discretion to be false, inaccurate or incomplete, and

upon conveyance of this fact to the company, I recognize and agree

that this exclusion of waste will be void as if it never had effect

or to the extent directed by EPA and that the company will be liable

for any actions taken in contravention of the company's RCRA and

CERCLA obligations premised upon the company's reliance on the void

exclusion.

To provide appropriate documentation that McDonnell Douglas'

facility is properly stabilizing the waste, all analytical data

obtained through Condition (3), including quality control information,

must be compiled, summarized, and maintained on site for a minimum of

five years. Condition (5) requires that these data be furnished upon

request and made available for inspection by any employee or

representative of EPA or the State of Oklahoma.

If made final, the proposed exclusion will apply to 85,000 cubic

yards of petitioned waste. The facility would be required to submit a

new petition if the stabilization process specified for the northwest

lagoon area of the closed landfill is significantly altered.

Although management of the wastes covered by this petition would

not be subject to Subtitle C jurisdiction upon final promulgation of an

exclusion, McDonnell Douglas must 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.

(6) Reopener

(a) If McDonnell Douglas discovers that a condition at the

facility or an assumption related to the disposal of the excluded

waste that was modeled or predicted in the petition does not occur

as modeled or predicted, then McDonnell Douglas must report any

information relevant to that condition, in writing, to the Regional

Administrator or his delegate within 10 days of discovering that

condition.

(b) Upon receiving any information including that described in

paragraph (a) regardless of its source, the Regional Administrator

or his delegate will determine whether the reported condition

requires further action. Further action may include revoking the

exclusion, modifying the exclusion, or other appropriate response

necessary to protect human health and the environment.

The purpose of paragraph (6) is to require McDonnell Douglas to

disclose new or different information related to a condition at the

facility or disposal of the waste if it had or has bearing on the

delisting. This paragraph will allow EPA to reevaluate the exclusion if

new or additional information is provided to the Agency from any source

which indicates that information which EPA's decision was based was

incorrect or circumstances have changed such that information is no

longer correct or would cause EPA to deny the petition if then

presented. Further, although this provision expressly requires

McDonnell Douglas to report differing site conditions or assumptions

used in the petition 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 these provisions

found in RCRA regulations governing no-migration petitions located at

Sec. 268.6.

The EPA believes that it has the authority under RCRA and the

Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978), et seq., to reopen

a delisting decision if new information is received that calls into

question the assumptions underlying the delisting and believes that a

clear statement of its authority in the context of delistings is

merited in light of Agency experience. (See, e.g., Reynolds Metals

Company at 62 FR 37694 and 62 FR 63458 where the delisted waste did not

leach in the actual disposal site as it had been modeled thus leading

the Agency to repeal the delisting.) In the meantime, in the event that

an immediate threat to human health and the environment presents

itself, EPA will continue to address such situations on a case-by-case

basis and where necessary, will make a good cause finding to justify

emergency rulemaking. See APA Sec. 553(b).

(7) Notification Requirements: McDonnell Douglas 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 activity. The one-time written notification must be updated

if the delisted waste is shipped to a different disposal facility.

Failure to provide such a notification will result in a violation of

the delisting petition and a possible revocation of the decision.

III. Effective Date

The EPA intends that this rule should become effective immediately

upon final publication. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of

1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA to allow

[[Page 37806]]

rules to become effective in less than six months when the regulated

community does not need the six-month period to come into compliance.

That is the case here, because this rule, if finalized, would reduce

the existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes. In

light of the unnecessary hardship and expense that would be imposed on

this petitioner by an effective date six months after publication and

the fact that a six-month deadline is not necessary to achieve the

purpose of section 3010, EPA believes that this exclusion should be

effective immediately upon final publication. These reasons also

provide a basis for making this rule effective immediately, upon final

publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC Sec. 553(d).

IV. Regulatory Impact

Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment'' of

the potential costs and benefits for all ``significant'' regulatory

actions. 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, thereby enabling this

facility to manage its waste as nonhazardous. There is no additional

impact therefore, due to today's proposed rule. Therefore, this

proposal would not be a significant regulation and no cost/benefit

assessment is required. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has

also exempted this rule from the requirement for OMB review under

Section (6) of Executive Order 12866.

V. Children's Health Protection

Under EO 13045, for all ``significant'' regulatory actions as

defined by EO 12866, EPA must provide an evaluation of the

environmental health or safety effect of a proposed rule on children

and an explanation of why the proposed rule is preferable to other

potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered

by EPA. This proposal is not a significant regulatory action and is

exempt from EO 13045.

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 the 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), Pub. L. 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 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. Intergovernmental Partnership

Under EO 12875, EPA may not promulgate any regulation which creates

an unfunded mandate upon State, local or tribal governments. 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 (See, Section IX. (UMRA) above) and accordingly,

this action is exempt from the requirements of EO 12875.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous Waste, Recycling, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 18, 1998.

William N. Rhea,

Acting Division Director of Multimedia Planning and Permitting.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

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

follows:

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

2. In Tables 1, 2, and 3 of Appendix IX of part 261 it is proposed

to add the following waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to

read as follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Parts 260.20 and

260.22

[[Page 37807]]

Table 1.--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources

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

Facility Address Waste description

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

* * * * * *

*

McDonnell Douglas Corporation....................... Tulsa, Oklahoma................. Stabilized wastewater

treatment sludges from

surface impoundments

previously closed as a

landfill (at a maximum

generation of 85,000

cubic yards on a one-

time basis). (EPA

Hazardous Waste No.

F019, F002, F003, and

F005) generated at U.S.

Air Force Plant No. 3,

Tulsa, Oklahoma and is

disposed of in Subtitle

D landfills after

[insert publication

date of final rule].

McDonnell Douglas must

implement a testing

program that meets the

following conditions

for the exclusion to be

valid:

(1) Delisting Levels:

All leachable

concentrations for the

following constituents

in the approximately

5,000 cubic yards of

unstabilized waste in

the bottom portion of

the northwest lagoon of

the surface

impoundments which are

closed as a landfill

must not exceed the

following levels (ppm)

after the stabilization

process is completed in

accordance with

Condition (3).

Constituents must be

measured in the waste

leachate by the method

specified in 40 CFR

261.24. Cyanide

extractions must be

conducted using

distilled water in the

place of the leaching

media per 40 CFR

261.24.

(A) Inorganic

Constituents

Antimony-0.336; Cadmium-

0.280; Hexavalent

Chromium-5.0; Lead-

0.84; Cyanide-11.2;

(B) Organic Constituents

Benzene-0.28;

Ethylbenzene-39.2;

Toluene-56.; Xylenes-

560.; trans-1,2-

Dichloroethene-5.6;

Tetrachloroethylene-

0.280;

Trichloroethylene-0.280

The approximately 80,000

cubic yards of

previously stabilized

waste in the upper

northwest lagoon,

entire northeast

lagoon, and entire

south lagoon of the

surface impoundments

which were closed as a

landfill requires no

verification testing.

(2) Waste Holding and

Handling: McDonnell

Douglas must store as

hazardous all

stabilized waste from

the bottom portion of

the northwest lagoon

area of the closed

landfill as generated

until verification

testing as specified in

Condition (3), is

completed and valid

analyses demonstrate

that condition (1) is

satisfied. If the

levels of constituents

measured in the samples

of the stabilized waste

do not exceed the

levels set forth in

Condition (1), then the

waste is nonhazardous

and may be managed and

disposed of in a

Subtitle D landfill in

accordance with all

applicable solid waste

regulations. If

constituent levels in a

sample exceed any of

the delisting levels

set in Condition (1),

the waste generated

during the time period

corresponding to this

sample must be

restabilized until

delisting levels are

met or managed and

disposed of in

accordance with

Subtitle C of RCRA.

(3) Verification Testing

Requirements: Sample

collection and

analyses, including

quality control

procedures, must be

performed according to

SW-846 methodologies.

McDonnell Douglas must

stabilize the

previously unstabilized

waste from the bottom

portion of the

northwest lagoon of the

surface impoundment

(which was closed as a

landfill) using fly

ash, kiln dust or

similar accepted

materials in batches of

500 cubic yards or

less. McDonnell Douglas

must analyze one

composite sample from

each batch of 500 cubic

yards or less. A

minimum of four grab

samples must be taken

from each waste pile

(or other designated

holding area) of

stabilized waste

generated from each

batch run. Each

composited batch sample

must be analyzed, prior

to disposal of the

waste in the batch

represented by that

sample, for

constituents listed in

Condition (1). There

are no verification

testing requirements

for the stabilized

wastes in the upper

portions of the

northwest lagoon, the

entire northeast

lagoon, and the entire

south lagoon of the

surface impoundments

which were closed as a

landfill.

(4) Changes in Operating

Conditions: If

McDonnell Douglas

significantly changes

the stabilization

process established

under Condition (3)

(e.g., use of new

stabilization agents),

McDonnell Douglas must

notify the Agency in

writing. After written

approval by EPA,

McDonnell Douglas may

handle the wastes

generated as non-

hazardous, if the

wastes meet the

delisting levels set in

Condition (1).

(5) Data Submittals:

Records of operating

conditions and

analytical data from

Condition (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

Oklahoma, or both, 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:

[[Page 37808]]

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 Sec. 1001 and 42

USC Sec. 6928), I

certify that the

information contained

in or accompanying this

document is true,

accurate and complete.

As to the (those)

identified section(s)

of this document for

which I cannot

personally verify its

(their) truth and

accuracy, I certify as

the company official

having supervisory

responsibility for the

persons who, acting

under my direct

instructions, made the

verification that this

information is true,

accurate and complete.

In the event that any of

this information is

determined by EPA in

its sole discretion to

be false, inaccurate or

incomplete, and upon

conveyance of this fact

to the company, I

recognize and agree

that this exclusion of

waste will be void as

if it never had effect

or to the extent

directed by EPA and

that the company will

be liable for any

actions taken in

contravention of the

company's RCRA and

CERCLA obligations

premised upon the

company's reliance on

the void exclusion.

(6) Reopener Language

(a) If McDonnell Douglas

discovers that a

condition at the

facility or an

assumption related to

the disposal of the

excluded waste that was

modeled or predicted in

the petition does not

occur as modeled or

predicted, then

McDonnell Douglas must

report any information

relevant to that

condition, in writing,

to the Regional

Administrator or his

delegate within 10 days

of discovering that

condition.

(b) Upon receiving

information described

in paragraph (a) from

any source, the

Regional Administrator

or his delegate will

determine whether the

reported condition

requires further

action. Further action

may include revoking

the exclusion,

modifying the

exclusion, or other

appropriate response

necessary to protect

human health and the

environment.

(7) Notification

Requirements: McDonnell

Douglas 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

activity. The one-time

written notification

must be updated if the

delisted waste is

shipped to a different

disposal facility.

Failure to provide such

a notification will

result in a violation

of the delisting

petition and a possible

revocation of the

decision.

* * * * * *

*

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

[FR Doc. 98-18732 Filed 7-13-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P