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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW-FRL-6426-6]

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

Chaparral Steel Midlothian, L.P. (Chaparral) to exclude (or delist)

certain solid wastes generated by its Midlothian, Texas, facility from

the lists of hazardous wastes.

Any person may petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any

provision of the solid waste regulations. Generators are specifically

provided the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a

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

The Agency bases its proposed decision to grant the petition on an

evaluation of waste-specific information provided by the petitioner.

This proposed decision, if finalized, would conditionally exclude the

petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations

under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

If finalized, we would conclude that Chaparral's petitioned waste

is nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria and that

the waste process Chaparral uses will substantially reduce the

likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from this waste. We

would also conclude that their process minimizes short-term and long-

term threats from the petitioned waste to human health and the

environment.

DATES: We will accept comments until October 8, 1999. We will stamp

comments postmarked after the close of the comment period as ``late.''

These ``late'' comments may not be considered in formulating a final

decision.

nstituents from this waste. We

would also conclude that their process minimizes short-term and long-

term threats from the petitioned waste to human health and the

environment.

DATES: We will accept comments until October 8, 1999. We will stamp

comments postmarked after the close of the comment period as ``late.''

These ``late'' comments may not be considered in formulating a final

decision.

ADDRESSES: Please send three copies of your comments. Two copies should

be sent to William Gallagher, Delisting Section, Multimedia Planning

and Permitting Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. A third copy should be sent to the

Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC), P.O. Box

13087, Austin, Texas, 78711-3087. Identify your comments at the top

with this regulatory docket number: ``F-99-TXDEL-CHAPARRAL.''

You should address requests for a hearing to the Acting Director,

Robert Hannesschlager, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division

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

75202.

Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by September 8, 1999.

The request must contain the information prescribed in section

260.20(d).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Gallagher at (214) 665-6775.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The information in this section is organized as follows:

I. Overview Information

A. What action is EPA proposing?

B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this delisting?

C. How will Chaparral manage the waste if it is delisted?

D. When would the proposed exclusion be finalized?

E. How would this action affect states?

II. Background

A. What is the history of the delisting program?

B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a

petitioner?

C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a

delisting petition?

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data

A. What wastes did Chaparral petition EPA to delist?

B

ion be finalized?

E. How would this action affect states?

II. Background

A. What is the history of the delisting program?

B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a

petitioner?

C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a

delisting petition?

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data

A. What wastes did Chaparral petition EPA to delist?

B. What information and analysis did Chaparral submit to support

this petition?

C. Who is Chaparral and what process do they use to generate the

petition waste?

D. How did Chaparral sample and analyze the data in this

petition?

E. What were the results of Chaparral's analysis?

F. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?

G. What did EPA conclude about Chaparral's analysis?

H. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?

I. What is EPA's final evaluation of this delisting petition?

IV. Next Steps

A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?

B. What happens if Chaparral violates the terms and conditions?

V. Public Comments

A. How may I as an interested party submit comments?

B. How may I review the docket or obtain copies of the proposed

exclusions?

I. Overview Information

A. What Action is EPA Proposing?

The EPA is proposing:

(1) To grant Chaparral's petition to have their Landfill No. 3

leachate, baghouse storm water, and other

wastewater that may have been in contact with the K061 waste excluded,

or delisted, from the definition of a hazardous waste; and

B. How may I review the docket or obtain copies of the proposed

exclusions?

I. Overview Information

A. What Action is EPA Proposing?

The EPA is proposing:

(1) To grant Chaparral's petition to have their Landfill No. 3

leachate, baghouse storm water, and other

wastewater that may have been in contact with the K061 waste excluded,

or delisted, from the definition of a hazardous waste; and

(2) To use a fate and transport model to evaluate the potential

impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the environment. The

Agency uses this model to predict the concentration of hazardous

constituents released from the petitioned waste once it is disposed.

B. Why is EPA Proposing to Approve This Delisting?

Chaparral petitioned the Agency to exclude, or delist, the landfill

leachate, baghouse storm water, and other wastewaters that may have

potentially come in contact with K061 waste because they do not believe

that the petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA listed it.

Chaparral also believes no additional constituents or factors could

cause the wastes to be hazardous.

Based on our review, described below, EPA has determined that the

waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria.

(If our review had found that the waste remained hazardous based on the

factors for which EPA listed the waste, we would have proposed to deny

the petition.)

In reviewing this petition, we considered the original listing

criteria and the additional factors required by RCRA section 3001(f),

42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)-(4). We evaluated the

petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in

Secs. 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3).

We also evaluated the waste for other factors or criteria to assess

whether these additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous

d the original listing

criteria and the additional factors required by RCRA section 3001(f),

42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)-(4). We evaluated the

petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in

Secs. 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3).

We also evaluated the waste for other factors or criteria to assess

whether these additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous.

These factors included: (1) whether the waste is considered acutely

toxic, (2) the toxicity of the constituents, (3) the concentration of

the constituents in the waste, (4) the waste constituent's tendency to

migrate and to bioaccumulate, (5) its persistence in the environment

once released from the waste, (6) plausible and specific types of

management of the petitioned waste, (7) the quantity of waste produced,

and (8) waste variability.

The EPA believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the

criteria for which it listed the waste and does meet the criteria for

delisting. The EPA's proposed decision to delist waste from Chaparral's

facility is based on the description of the proposed treatment system

and analytical data from the Midlothian facility submitted to support

today's rule.

C. How Will Chaparral Manage the Waste if it is Delisted?

The facility would like to manage the waste in their onsite cooling

system of which cooling ponds are a part. The wastewater would be

substituted for some of the well water presently used for cooling

purposes which would help conserve that natural resource. In this case,

the requested change in waste management is subject to delisting by EPA

and subsequent waste management practices in accordance with TNRCC

rules and regulations.

D. When Would the Proposed Delisting Exclusion be Finalized?

e a part. The wastewater would be

substituted for some of the well water presently used for cooling

purposes which would help conserve that natural resource. In this case,

the requested change in waste management is subject to delisting by EPA

and subsequent waste management practices in accordance with TNRCC

rules and regulations.

D. When Would the Proposed Delisting Exclusion be Finalized?

The Hazardous and Solid Waste Act specifically requires EPA to

provide notice and an opportunity for comment before granting or

denying a final exclusion. Thus, EPA will not grant the exclusion until

it addresses all timely public comments (including those at public

hearings, if any) on today's proposal.

This rule, if finalized, will become effective immediately upon

final publication. Section 3010(b) at 42 United States Code Annotated

6930(b) of RCRA allows rules to become effective in less than six

months when the regulated community does not need the six-month period

to come into compliance. That is the case here, because this rule, if

finalized, would reduce the existing requirements for persons

generating hazardous wastes.

The EPA believes that this exclusion should be effective

immediately upon final publication because a six-month deadline is not

necessary to achieve the purpose of section 3010(b), and a later

effective date would impose unnecessary hardship and expense on this

petitioner. These reasons also provide good cause for making this rule

effective immediately, upon final publication, under the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

E. How would this action affect states?

blication because a six-month deadline is not

necessary to achieve the purpose of section 3010(b), and a later

effective date would impose unnecessary hardship and expense on this

petitioner. These reasons also provide good cause for making this rule

effective immediately, upon final publication, under the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

E. How would this action affect states?

Because EPA is issuing today's exclusion under the Federal RCRA

delisting program, only States subject to Federal RCRA delisting

provisions would be affected. This would exclude two categories of

States: States having a dual system that includes Federal RCRA

requirements and their own requirements, and States who have received

authorization from EPA to make their own delisting decisions.

Here are the details: We allow states to impose their own non-RCRA

regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under

section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a

provision that prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking

effect in the State. Because a dual system (that is, both Federal

(RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's

waste, we urge petitioners to contact the State regulatory authority to

establish the status of their wastes under the State law.

The EPA has also authorized some States (for example, Louisiana,

Georgia, Illinois) to administer a RCRA delisting program in place of

the Federal program, that is, to make State delisting decisions.

Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized States. If

Chaparral transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in

any State with delisting authorization, Chaparral must obtain delisting

authorization from that State before they can manage the waste as

nonhazardous in the State.

II. Background

A. What is the history of the delisting program?

te delisting decisions.

Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized States. If

Chaparral transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in

any State with delisting authorization, Chaparral must obtain delisting

authorization from that State before they can manage the waste as

nonhazardous in the State.

II. Background

A. What is the history of the delisting program?

The EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from

nonspecific and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its

final and interim final regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA.

The EPA has amended this list several times and published it in

Secs. 261.31 and 261.32.

We list these wastes as hazardous because: (1) they typically and

frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous

wastes identified in subpart C of part 261 (that is, ignitability,

corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or (2) they meet the criteria

for listing contained in Secs. 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3).

Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw

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

described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a specific waste

from an individual facility meeting the listing description may not be

hazardous.

For this reason, sections 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion

procedure, called delisting, which allows persons to prove that EPA

should not regulate a specific waste from a particular generating

facility as a hazardous waste.

B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a

petitioner?

A delisting petition is a request from a facility to EPA or an

authorized State to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes.

The facility petitions the Agency because they do not consider the

wastes hazardous under RCRA regulations.

a specific waste from a particular generating

facility as a hazardous waste.

B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a

petitioner?

A delisting petition is a request from a facility to EPA or an

authorized State to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes.

The facility petitions the Agency because they do not consider the

wastes hazardous under RCRA regulations.

In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that wastes

generated at a particular facility do not meet any of the criteria for

the listed wastes. The criteria for which EPA lists a waste are in part

261 and in the background documents for the listed wastes.

In addition, under section 260.22, a petitioner must prove that the

waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (that

is, ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and present

sufficient information for EPA to decide whether factors other than

those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a

hazardous waste. See part 261 and the background documents for the

listed wastes.

Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm whether their

waste remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics

even if EPA has ``delisted'' the wastes.

C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a

delisting petition?

Besides considering the criteria in section 260.22(a), in 42 U.S.C.

6921(f), and in the background documents for the listed wastes, EPA

must consider any factors (including additional constituents) other

than those for which we listed the waste if a reasonable basis exists

that these additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous.

See 3010(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

The EPA must also consider as hazardous wastes mixtures containing

listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or

disposing of listed hazardous waste. See Secs

itional constituents) other

than those for which we listed the waste if a reasonable basis exists

that these additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous.

See 3010(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

The EPA must also consider as hazardous wastes mixtures containing

listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or

disposing of listed hazardous waste. See Secs. 261.3(a)(2)(iii and iv)

and (c)(2)(i), called the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,

respectively. These wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain

hazardous wastes until excluded.

The ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules are now final, after

having been vacated, remanded, and reinstated. On December 6, 1991, the

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

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

grounds. See Shell Oil Co. v. EPA., 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1991). On

March 3, 1992, EPA reinstated the mixture and derived-from rules, and

solicited comments on other ways to regulate waste mixtures and

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

1992. See (57 FR 49278) Consult these references for more information

about mixtures derived from wastes.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data

A. What wastes did Chaparral petition EPA to delist?

On February 23, 1999, Chaparral Steel petitioned EPA for a

conditional exclusion for 500,000 gallons (about 2,500 cubic yards) per

year of leachate from its Landfill No. 3 single RCRA landfill unit

containing electric arc furnace dust. The furnace dust is captured in

the baghouse during the steelmaking process and is a listed hazardous

waste classified as K061. The petitioned wastes are largely leachate

generated in the landfill's leachate collection system and minor

amounts of K061 wastewater from various plant operations including

storm water from the baghouse floor areas and the pelletizer sump

electric arc furnace dust. The furnace dust is captured in

the baghouse during the steelmaking process and is a listed hazardous

waste classified as K061. The petitioned wastes are largely leachate

generated in the landfill's leachate collection system and minor

amounts of K061 wastewater from various plant operations including

storm water from the baghouse floor areas and the pelletizer sump.

These liquid wastes are presently pumped to an onsite storage tank. The

resulting waste is also listed under Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(i) (the ``derived

from'' rule), as EPA Hazardous Waste No. K061. The listed constituents

of concern for this waste code are hexavalent chromium, lead, and

cadmium.

B. What information and analysis did Chaparral submit to support this

petition?

To support its petition, Chaparral submitted:

(1) historical analytical data for the Electric Arc Furnace Dust

(K061), and leachate analytical data from their Landfill No. 3

containing the Electric Arc Furnace Dust, and analytical data for the

liquid from the K061 waste water storage tank;

(2) analytical results of the total constituent list for 40 CFR

part 264, appendix IX volatiles, semivolatiles, metals (including

hexavalent chromium), pesticides, herbicides, polychlorinated

biphenyls, furans, and dioxins;

(3) analytical results of the constituent list derived from

appendix IX for identified constituents;

(4) analytical results for reactive sulfide;

(5) analytical results for reactive cyanide;

(6) test results for corrosivity by pH;

(7) analytical results of samples from bench tests of treated

leachate/K061 wastewater; and

minor amounts of water that has potentially contacted K061 is

occasionally added to the tank. However, the amounts of storm water and

other potentially contaminated wastewaters are very minor as compared

to the leachate. The contents of the leachate tank are presently

transported to an offsite injection facility for disposal.

D. How did Chaparral sample and analyze the data in this petition?

Chaparral developed a list of constituents of concern from prior

analytical data and by analyzing the first sample for the entire

appendix IX list of hazardous constituents found in 40 CFR part 264.

More specifically, Chaparral analyzed one treated and one raw leachate

composite sample 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 were analyzed for the comprehensive list

in order to confirm that there were no other constituents of concern in

the petitioned waste.

Chaparral collected four composite samples from the storage tank

over a twenty-five week period. They collected these samples in this

manner to ensure that the samples represented the potential time and

space variability of the petitioned waste. 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

reactive constituent concentrations of cyanide and sulfide. These

samples were not analyzed for TCLP

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

of extract) since the leachate is a liquid and the total analysis

concentration is considered to be the TCLP concentration.

or reactive properties as

defined under 40 CFR 261.21, 261.22, and 261.23, including analysis for

reactive constituent concentrations of cyanide and sulfide. These

samples were not analyzed for TCLP

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

of extract) since the leachate is a liquid and the total analysis

concentration is considered to be the TCLP concentration.

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

Chaparral used these methods To quantify

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

SW-846 Method 8260, and 8270.............. The total constituent

concentrations of 40 CFR,

part Sec. 264 Appendix IX

Volatiles and Appendix IX

Semivolatiles including

PCBs, Pesticides, and

Herbicides.

SW-846 Methods 6010, 7041, and 7740, and Appendix IX Metals.

7196.

SW-846 Methods 7470....................... Mercury.

9071...................................... Total oil and grease.

9045...................................... pH

9030...................................... Reactive Sulfide.

9010...................................... Reactive Cyanide.

1010...................................... Ignitability.

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

E. What were the results of Chaparral's analysis?

Tables 1 and 2 present the maximum total constituent leachate

concentrations for the raw waste and for the treated waste samples from

bench test studies. The bench test study simulated a typical wastewater

treatment process. If the raw (untreated) waste does not meet delisting

criteria, then Chaparral intends to treat the waste in a wastewater

treatment plant to meet the delisting criteria.

The wastewater treatment process would add a coagulant such as

ferric chloride to precipitate the metal constituents and then add a

cationic polymer to flocculate the metal constituents

a typical wastewater

treatment process. If the raw (untreated) waste does not meet delisting

criteria, then Chaparral intends to treat the waste in a wastewater

treatment plant to meet the delisting criteria.

The wastewater treatment process would add a coagulant such as

ferric chloride to precipitate the metal constituents and then add a

cationic polymer to flocculate the metal constituents. A filter unit

would remove the precipitated metal constituents which would yield a

wastewater with concentrations of constituents of concern well below

the delisting criteria concentrations.

Chaparral calculated, based on historical information and the worst

case scenario, the maximum petitioned waste to be excluded on a yearly

basis will be 500,000 gallons (or about 2500 cubic yards) of petitioned

waste. The sworn affidavit submitted with this petition binds the

petitioner to present truthful and accurate results. The EPA reviews a

petitioner's estimates and, on occasion, has requested a petitioner to

reevaluate the estimated waste volume. The EPA accepted Chaparrals'

certified estimates. The EPA does not generally verify submitted test

data before proposing delisting decisions. 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.

. The EPA does not generally verify submitted test

data before proposing delisting decisions. 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 1.--Maximum Organic Total Constituent Concentrations 1 For Raw

Leachate/K061 Wastewater and Treated Leachate/K061 Wastewater from the

Storage Tank

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

Total

Total Constituent

Constituent Analyses for

Constituents Analyses for Treated

Raw Leachate 1 Leachate 1 (mg/

(mg/l) l)

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

1,2-Dichloroethane.................... 0.004 <0.005

2-Butanone............................ 0.003 0.005

4-Methyl-2-pentanone.................. 0.008 0.005

Acetone............................... 0.08 0.1

Carbon Disulfide...................... 0.003 0.005

Chloromethane......................... <0.01 0.001

Ethylbenzene.......................... 0.004 <0.005

Methyl Iodide......................... <0.01 0.002

Methylene Chloride.................... 0.001 <0.005

Toluene............................... 0.001 0.004

Xylene................................ 0.03 0.006

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

< 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.

F. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?

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

< 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.

F. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?

Chaparral Steel's petition requests a conditional delisting for

listed hazardous wastes. In making the initial delisting determination,

EPA evaluated the petitioned wastes against the listing criteria and

factors cited in Secs. 261.11(a)(1), 261.11(a)(2) and 261.11(a)(3).

Based on this review, EPA has determined that the waste is nonhazardous

with respect to the original listing criteria. (If 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, 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

tence 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, 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 surface

impoundment is the most reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for

Chaparral's petitioned wastes, and that the major exposure route of

concern would be ingestion of contaminated ground water. Therefore, EPA

used a particular fate and transport model, 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

Chaparral's petitioned wastes on human health and the environment. You

can find a detailed description of the EPACML model, the disposal

assumptions, and the modifications made for delisting in 56 FR 32993

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

docket. This model includes both unsaturated and saturated zone

transport modules. It uses the reasonable worse-case contaminant levels

in ground water at a compliance point (that is, a receptor well serving

as a drinking-water supply.)

Specifically, EPA used the maximum estimated waste volumes and the

maximum reported concentrations as inputs to estimate the constituent

concentrations in the ground water at a hypothetical receptor well

downgradient from a theoretical 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 or health-based

levels derived from verified Reference Doses

ent

concentrations in the ground water at a hypothetical receptor well

downgradient from a theoretical 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 or health-based

levels derived from verified Reference Doses. 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 surface impoundment, 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), 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.

The EPA also considers the applicability of ground water monitoring

data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. The evaluation of

the information submitted indicated that the waste is managed in a tank

with secondary containment

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.

The EPA also considers the applicability of ground water monitoring

data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. The evaluation of

the information submitted indicated that the waste is managed in a tank

with secondary containment. Therefore ground water data is not

applicable to this petition.

From the evaluation of Chaparral's delisting petition, one of the

constituents evaluated, lead, is being proposed as a verification

testing condition. Proposed maximum allowable leachable concentrations

for this constituent was derived by back-calculating from the delisting

health-based levels through the proposed fate and transport model for a

surface impoundment management scenario and by comparing results with

the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) maximum allowable concentration.

The lowest of these two concentrations (i.e., delisting levels) are

part of the verification testing conditions of the proposed exclusion.

Therefore, delisting levels are less than LDR concentrations and thus

the LDRs are met. Details of the evaluation of lead and other

constituents of concern is explained in more detail later in this

section.

Chaparral's exclusion (if granted) would be contingent upon the

facility conducting sampling and analysis of the waste to insure that

the delisting conditions are met (i.e., wastes meet EPA's verification

testing conditions).

The EPA's proposed decision is based on the information submitted

in support of today's rule, i.e., historical data from the Landfill No.

3 leachate, analytical data from recent samples from the leachate

storage tank containing leachate and K061 wastewaters, and analytical

data from bench tests of the leachate/K061 wastewaters after treatment

in a simulated wastewater treatment system

ions).

The EPA's proposed decision is based on the information submitted

in support of today's rule, i.e., historical data from the Landfill No.

3 leachate, analytical data from recent samples from the leachate

storage tank containing leachate and K061 wastewaters, and analytical

data from bench tests of the leachate/K061 wastewaters after treatment

in a simulated wastewater treatment system.

Finally, RCRA (7004(b)(1)) specifically requires 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.

The EPA's evaluation of the raw leachate using a Dilution

Attenuation Factor of 68, a maximum waste volume annually of 2500 cubic

yards (or 500,000 gallons per calender year), and the maximum reported

constituent concentrations (see Tables 1 and 2), yielded compliance

point concentrations (see Tables 3 and 4) that are below the current

health-based levels except for the constituent lead which is discussed

below.

In Table 3, the calculated compliance point concentrations derived

from the maximum reported leachate concentrations (see Table 1) of the

organic constituents detected in the waste are compared with the levels

of concern. The organic constituents are believed to be artifacts from

sampling or analysis errors because: (1) the arc furnace process should

have destroyed the organic chemicals, (2) the organic constituents are

not detected consistently, (3) most detections are near the detection

limits, and (4) several of the compounds are common laboratory

contaminants. However, in spite of this reasoning, EPA completed the

evaluation conservatively using the highest concentration found for

each organic constituent in the petitioned waste

ould

have destroyed the organic chemicals, (2) the organic constituents are

not detected consistently, (3) most detections are near the detection

limits, and (4) several of the compounds are common laboratory

contaminants. However, in spite of this reasoning, EPA completed the

evaluation conservatively using the highest concentration found for

each organic constituent in the petitioned waste. As shown in Table 3,

the maximum reported leachate concentrations of 1,2-dichloroethane, 2-

butanone, 4-methyl-2-pentanone, acetone, carbon disulfide,

ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, toluene, and xylene yielded

compliance point concentrations below the health-based levels used in

delisting decision-making. It should also be noted that the

concentrations of the organic constituents found in the raw leachate

are below LDR concentration values and therefore the LDRs are met. See

Table 1.

The EPA also evaluated the mobility of the two remaining organic

constituents cloromethane and methyl iodide which were not detected in

the leachate but were found in the treated leachate at concentrations

of 0.001 and 0.002 mg/l yielding compliance concentrations of 0.00001

and 0.00003 mg/l, in respective order. These concentrations are well

below the levels of concern of 0.007 and 0.03 mg/l, respectively. The

0.001 and 0.002 mg/l values are below the LDR concentration values and

therefore the LDRs are met.

In Table 4, the calculated compliance point concentrations derived

from the maximum reported leachate/K061 wastewater concentrations of

the inorganic constituents (see Table 2) detected in the petitioned raw

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

reported or calculated concentrations of arsenic, barium, cadmium,

total chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, vanadium, and zinc yielded

compliance point concentrations below Levels of Concern

he maximum reported leachate/K061 wastewater concentrations of

the inorganic constituents (see Table 2) detected in the petitioned raw

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

reported or calculated concentrations of arsenic, barium, cadmium,

total chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, vanadium, and zinc yielded

compliance point concentrations below Levels of Concern.

The EPA did not evaluate the mobility of the constituents

beryllium, hexavalent chromium, cobalt, selenium, silver, thallium and

cyanide from Chaparral's petitioned waste because

these constituents were not detected in the leachate using the

appropriate analytical test methods. See Table 2. 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), 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.

The maximum reported raw leachate concentration for a single sample

of lead (2.0 mg/l) yielded a calculated compliance point concentration

(0.029 mg/l) slightly above the health-based level (0.015 mg/l) used in

the delisting decision-making process.

The lead value (0.029 mg/l) represents the calculated leachate

concentrations of lead at a theoretical downgradient ground water

monitoring well using the EPACML model and a concentration value of 2.0

mg/l from one raw waste sample. This value was the highest

concentration identified for the four analysis completed for lead

ed level (0.015 mg/l) used in

the delisting decision-making process.

The lead value (0.029 mg/l) represents the calculated leachate

concentrations of lead at a theoretical downgradient ground water

monitoring well using the EPACML model and a concentration value of 2.0

mg/l from one raw waste sample. This value was the highest

concentration identified for the four analysis completed for lead. The

four concentration values for lead as identified in the raw waste were

2.0, 1.3, 0.5 and 0.55 mg/l and the values for the treated waste were

0.081, 0.06, 0.026, and <0.0011 mg/l. Two of the raw waste lead values

(0.5 and 0.55 mg/l) and all of the treated samples yield calculated

compliance point concentrations below the concentration of concern. For

this reason, verification testing for one waste constituent, lead, will

be a condition of the delisting.

Lead was the only constituent that did not consistently have

calculated compliance point concentrations below the concentrations of

concern. As shown in Tables 3 and 4, all other constituents were always

below the concentrations of concern at the calculated compliance point.

It should also be noted that the concentration values as measured in

the raw waste for all other constituents of concern were below the LDR

concentration values. Therefore, with the exception of the constituent

lead, the petitioned waste meets LDR concentration values even before

the compliance point concentrations are calculated. Seven years of

historical leachate data also supported the decision that lead was the

only Constituent of Concern which should require verification testing.

er constituents of concern were below the LDR

concentration values. Therefore, with the exception of the constituent

lead, the petitioned waste meets LDR concentration values even before

the compliance point concentrations are calculated. Seven years of

historical leachate data also supported the decision that lead was the

only Constituent of Concern which should require verification testing.

Table 2.--Maximum Inorganic Total Constituent Concentrations For Raw

Leachate/K061 Wastewater and Treated Leachate/K061 Wastewater From the

K061 Storage Tank

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

Total

Total Constituent

Constituent Analyses for

Constituents Analyses for Treated

Raw Leachate Leachate \1\

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

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

Antimony.............................. <0.0066 0.008

Arsenic............................... 0.081 0.068

Barium............................... 0.26 0.007

Beryllium............................. <0.0017 <0.0017

Cadmium............................... 0.019 0.0020

Chromium (Total)...................... 0.17 0.013

Chromium (Hexavalent)................. <0.1 <0.02

Cobalt................................ <0.0016 <0.0016

Copper................................ 0.096 0.029

Lead.................................. 2 0.081

Mercury............................... 0.00031 0.00016

Nickel................................ 0.019 0.014

Selenium.............................. <0.01 0.044

Silver................................ <0.0012 <0.0012

Thallium.............................. <0.0096 <0.0096

Tin................................... 0.025 0.017

Vanadium.............................. 0.042 0.038

Zinc.................................. 5.6 0.08

Sulfide (Total)....................... 1.3 <1.0

Cyanide (Total)....................... <0.0018 <0.0018

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

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

limit

................................... 0.025 0.017

Vanadium.............................. 0.042 0.038

Zinc.................................. 5.6 0.08

Sulfide (Total)....................... 1.3 <1.0

Cyanide (Total)....................... <0.0018 <0.0018

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

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

limit.

\1\ These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent

found in any one sample. These levels do not necessarily represent the

specific levels found in one sample.

Table 3.--EPACML: Calculated Compliance Point Organic Concentrations for

Raw Leachate and K061 Wastewater From the K061 Storage Tank.

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

Compliance Point Levels of

Organic Constituents Concentrations Concern \2\ (mg/

\1\ (mg/l) l)

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

1,2-Dichloroethane.................. 0.00006 0.005

2-Butanone.......................... 0.00004 20.

4-Methyl-2-pentanone................ 0.0001 2.

Acetone............................. 0.001 4.

Carbon Disulfide.................... 0.00004 4.

Ethylbenzene........................ 0.00006 70.

Methylene Chloride.................. 0.00001 0.005

Toluene............................. 0.00001 1.

Xylene.............................. 0.0004 10.

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

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

specified in the table.

\1\ Using the maximum leachate level from Table 1 and based on a DAF of

68 calculated using the EPACML for a yearly volume of 2500 cu. yards

(or 500,000 gal.).

\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 document.

detected at the detection limit

specified in the table.

\1\ Using the maximum leachate level from Table 1 and based on a DAF of

68 calculated using the EPACML for a yearly volume of 2500 cu. yards

(or 500,000 gal.).

\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 document.

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

for Raw Leachate/K061 Wastewater From the K061 Storage Tank.

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

Compliance Point Levels of

Inorganic Constituents Concentrations Concern \2\ (mg/

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

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

Arsenic............................. 0.0012 0.05

Barium.............................. 0.0038 2.

Cadmium............................. 0.00028 0.005

Chromium (Total).................... 0.0025 0.1

Copper.............................. 0.0014 1.3

Lead................................ 0.03 0.015

Mercury............................. 0.000005 0.002

Nickel.............................. 0.00028 0.1

Tin................................. 0.00037 21.

Vanadium............................ 0.00062 0.3

Zinc................................ 0.082 5.

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

\1\ Using the maximum concentration level from Table 2 and based on a

DAF of 68 calculated using the EPACML for yearly volume of 2500 cu.

yards (or 500,000 gal.).

\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 document.

G. What did EPA conclude about Chaparral's analysis?

The EPA concluded, after reviewing Chaparral Steel's processes and

analytical data that:

using the EPACML for yearly volume of 2500 cu.

yards (or 500,000 gal.).

\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 document.

G. What did EPA conclude about Chaparral's analysis?

The EPA concluded, after reviewing Chaparral Steel's processes and

analytical data that:

(1) 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 Chaparral's wastes, and

(2) the petitioned wastes do not exhibit any of the characteristics

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

and 261.23, respectively.

H. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?

During the evaluation of Chaparral's petition, 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, EPA believes that exposure to airborne

contaminants from the petitioned wastes is unlikely as the constituents

of concern are not volatile organics which would readily transfer to

the ambient air; no appreciable air releases are likely from the

petitioned wastes under any likely disposal conditions. Nor does EPA

believe that the petitioned waste presents a threat to surface water.

Calculations indicate that the concentrations of the constituents of

concern would be below drinking water criteria and surface water

criteria before reaching the nearest surface water. See docket.

I. What is EPA's final evaluation of this delisting petition?

itioned wastes under any likely disposal conditions. Nor does EPA

believe that the petitioned waste presents a threat to surface water.

Calculations indicate that the concentrations of the constituents of

concern would be below drinking water criteria and surface water

criteria before reaching the nearest surface water. See docket.

I. What is EPA's final evaluation of this delisting petition?

The descriptions of the Chaparral Steel's process and analytical

characterization, in conjunction with the proposed verification testing

requirement (as discussed later in this document), provide a reasonable

basis to grant Chaparral Steel's petition for a conditional exclusion

of the petitioned waste. The EPA believes the data submitted in support

of the petition show Chaparral Steel's proposed wastewater treatment

process can render the raw leachate wastes non-hazardous if the raw

leachate does not meet delisting conditions. Treatment is an option if

the untreated waste does not meet the delisting criteria. The EPA has

reviewed the sampling procedures used by Chaparral Steel 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, with the exception of lead in two samples, in

Chaparral Steel's raw leachate waste are presently below health-based

levels used in the delisting decision-making. The EPA believes that the

facility's information has successfully shown that the petitioned waste

is non-hazardous or can be rendered non-hazardous through treatment.

The EPA, therefore, proposes to grant a conditional exclusion to

Chaparral Steel Midlothian, L.P., located in Midlothian, Texas, for the

leachate from their Landfill No. 3, the storm water from their

baghouse, and other wastewater that may have come in contact with K061

mation has successfully shown that the petitioned waste

is non-hazardous or can be rendered non-hazardous through treatment.

The EPA, therefore, proposes to grant a conditional exclusion to

Chaparral Steel Midlothian, L.P., located in Midlothian, Texas, for the

leachate from their Landfill No. 3, the storm water from their

baghouse, and other wastewater that may have come in contact with K061.

The EPA's decision to conditionally exclude this waste is based on the

historical analytical data associated with the petitioned waste and

characterization of the raw and treated 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.

IV. Next Steps

A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?

The petitioner, Chaparral, must comply with the requirements in 40

CFR part 261, appendix IX, Table 2. The text below gives the rational

and details of those requirements.

(1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations for the constituent

total lead in the approximately 2,500 cubic yards (500,000 gallons)

per calender year of raw leachate from Landfill No.3, storm water

from the baghouse area, and other K061 wastewaters that is

transferred from the storage tank to nonhazardous management must

not exceed 0.69 mg/l (parts per million). Constituents must be

measured in the waste by the method specified in SW-846.

the constituent

total lead in the approximately 2,500 cubic yards (500,000 gallons)

per calender year of raw leachate from Landfill No.3, storm water

from the baghouse area, and other K061 wastewaters that is

transferred from the storage tank to nonhazardous management must

not exceed 0.69 mg/l (parts per million). Constituents must be

measured in the waste by the method specified in SW-846.

This paragraph provides the level of lead for which Chaparral Steel

must test the raw leachate, baghouse storm water, and other K061

wastewaters combined in the storage tank. This is the level below which

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

is proposing to grant an annual conditional exclusion. The EPA selected

the lead constituent specified after reviewing information about the

composition of the waste, descriptions of Chaparral's treatment

process, previous test data provided for the waste, the respective

health-based levels used in delisting decision-making, and LDR levels.

The EPA established the proposed delisting levels for this paragraph by

back-calculating the Maximum Allowable Leachate concentrations from the

health-based levels for the constituents of concern using the EPACML

chemical-specific DAF of 68. See, previous discussions in Section

III.F, i.e., MAL = HBL x DAF or 1.02 mg/l=0.015 mg/l x 68. The EPA

selected the more conservative concentration level in considering the

calculated health-based value of 1.02 mg/l and the technology based LDR

value of 0.69 mg/l. This delisting level corresponds to the allowable

levels measured in the waste.

rn using the EPACML

chemical-specific DAF of 68. See, previous discussions in Section

III.F, i.e., MAL = HBL x DAF or 1.02 mg/l=0.015 mg/l x 68. The EPA

selected the more conservative concentration level in considering the

calculated health-based value of 1.02 mg/l and the technology based LDR

value of 0.69 mg/l. This delisting level corresponds to the allowable

levels measured in the waste.

(2) Waste Holding and Handling: Chaparral Steel must store as

hazardous all leachate waste from Landfill No. 3, storm water from

the bag house area, and other K061 wastewaters 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 waste do not exceed

the levels set forth in Condition (1), then the waste is

nonhazardous and may be managed and disposed of in accordance with

all applicable solid waste regulations. If constituent levels in a

sample exceed the delisting levels set in Condition (1), the waste

volume corresponding to this sample must be treated until delisting

levels are met or returned to the original storage tank. Treatment

is designated as precipitation, flocculation, and filtering in a

wastewater treatment system to remove metals from the wastewater. If

the delisting level cannot be met, then the waste must be managed

and disposed of in accordance with subtitle C of RCRA.

aste

volume corresponding to this sample must be treated until delisting

levels are met or returned to the original storage tank. Treatment

is designated as precipitation, flocculation, and filtering in a

wastewater treatment system to remove metals from the wastewater. If

the delisting level cannot be met, then the waste must be managed

and disposed of in accordance with subtitle C of RCRA.

The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that any waste located

in the storage tank which might contain hazardous levels of lead are

managed and disposed of in accordance with subtitle C of RCRA. Holding

the leachate waste from Landfill No. 3, the storm water from the

baghouse area, and other K061 wastewaters until characterization is

complete will protect against improper handling of hazardous material.

If EPA determines that the data collected under this condition do not

support the data provided for the petition or Chaparral Steel 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. Chaparral Steel must analyze one

composite sample from each batch of untreated wastewater transferred

from the hazardous waste storage tank to non-hazardous waste

management. Each composited batch sample must be analyzed, prior to

non-hazardous management of the waste in the batch represented by

that sample, for the constituent lead as listed in Condition (1).

Chaparral may treat the waste as specified in Condition (2).

If EPA judges the treatment process to be effective during the

operating conditions used during the initial verification testing,

Chaparral Steel may replace the testing requirement in Condition

(3)(A) with the testing requirement in Condition (3)(B). Chaparral

must continue to test as specified in (3)(A) until and unless

notified by EPA or designated authority that testing in Condition

2).

If EPA judges the treatment process to be effective during the

operating conditions used during the initial verification testing,

Chaparral Steel may replace the testing requirement in Condition

(3)(A) with the testing requirement in Condition (3)(B). Chaparral

must continue to test as specified in (3)(A) until and unless

notified by EPA or designated authority that testing in Condition

(3)(A) may be replaced with by Condition (3)(B).

(A) Initial Verification Testing: Representative composite

samples from the first eight (8) full-scale treated batches of

wastewater from the K061 leachate/wastewater storage tank must be

analyzed for the constituent lead as listed in Condition (1),

Chaparral must report to EPA the operational and analytical test

data, including quality control information, obtained from these

initial full scale treatment batches within 90 days of the eighth

treatment batch.

(B) Subsequent Verification Testing: Following notification by

EPA, Chaparral Steel may substitute the testing conditions in (3)(B)

for (3)(A). Chaparral Steel must analyze representative composite

samples from the treated full scale batches on an annual basis. If

delisting levels for any constituent listed in Condition (1) are

exceeded in the annual sample, Chaparral must reinstitute complete

testing as required in Condition (3)(A). As stated in Condition (3)

Chaparral must continue to test all untreated batches to determine

if delisting criteria are met before managing the wastewater from

the K061 tank as nonhazardous.

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If Chaparral Steel

significantly changes the treatment process established under

Condition (3) (e.g., use of new treatment agents), Chaparral Steel

must notify the Agency in writing. After written approval by EPA,

Chaparral Steel may handle the wastes generated as non-hazardous, if

the wastes meet the delisting levels set in Condition (1).

s nonhazardous.

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If Chaparral Steel

significantly changes the treatment process established under

Condition (3) (e.g., use of new treatment agents), Chaparral Steel

must notify the Agency in writing. After written approval by EPA,

Chaparral Steel 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 Texas,

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 U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C.

6928), I certify that the information contained in or accompanying

this document is true, accurate and complete.

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

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

certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility

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

verification that this information is true, accurate and complete

ed 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

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

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

exclusion.

To provide appropriate documentation that Chaparral Steel's

facility is properly managing 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 Texas.

If made final, the proposed conditional exclusion will apply to

2500 cubic yards (500,000 gallons) per calender year of petitioned

waste. Although management of the wastes covered by this petition would

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

exclusion, Chaparral must ensure that the onsite management of the

delisted waste is in accordance with TNRCC rules and regulations or 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.

be subject to subtitle C jurisdiction upon final promulgation of an

exclusion, Chaparral must ensure that the onsite management of the

delisted waste is in accordance with TNRCC rules and regulations or 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 Language

(A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, Chaparral

Steel possesses or is otherwise made aware of any environmental data

(including but not limited to leachate data or groundwater

monitoring data) or any other data relevant to the delisted waste

indicating that any constituent identified for the delisting

verification testing is at level higher than the delisting level

allowed by the Regional Administrator or his delegate in granting

the petition, then the facility must report the data, in writing, to

the Regional Administrator or his delegate within 10 days of first

possessing or being made aware of that data.

(B) If Chaparral fails to submit or maintain the data requested

in paragraphs (5), or (6)(A) or if any information is received from

any source, the Regional Administrator or his delegate will make a

preliminary determination as to whether the reported information

requires Agency action to protect human health or the environment.

Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or

other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the

environment.

(C) If the Regional Administrator or his delegate determines

that the reported information does require Agency action, the

Regional Administrator or his delegate will notify the facility in

writing of the actions the Regional Administrator or his delegate

believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment

opriate response necessary to protect human health and the

environment.

(C) If the Regional Administrator or his delegate determines

that the reported information does require Agency action, the

Regional Administrator or his delegate will notify the facility in

writing of the actions the Regional Administrator or his delegate

believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment.

The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a

statement providing the facility with an opportunity to present

information as to why the proposed Agency action is not necessary.

The facility shall have 10 days from the date of the Regional

Administrator or delegate's notice to present such information.

(D) Following the receipt of information from the facility

described in paragraph (6)(C) or (if no information is presented

under paragraph (6)(C)) the initial receipt of information described

in paragraph (5) or (6)(A), the Regional Administrator or his

delegate will issue a final written determination describing the

Agency actions that are necessary to protect human health or the

environment. Any required action described in the Regional

Administrator or delegate's determination shall become effective

immediately, unless the Regional Administrator or his delegate

provides otherwise.

The purpose of paragraph (6) is to require Chaparral Steel 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

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

Chaparral 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 is similar to these provisions found in RCRA

regulations governing no-migration petitions located at section 268.6.

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

Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 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 section 553(b).

ot

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 section 553(b).

(7) Notification Requirements: Chaparral Steel 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.

B. What happens if Chaparral violates the terms and conditions?

If Chaparral violates the terms and conditions established in the

exclusion, the Agency will start procedures to withdraw the exclusion.

Where there is an immediate threat to human health and the environment,

the Agency will continue to evaluate these events on a case-by-case

basis. The Agency expects Chaparral to conduct the appropriate waste

analysis and comply with the criteria explained above in terms and

conditions of the exclusion.

V. Public Comments

A. How may I as an interested party submit comments?

w the exclusion.

Where there is an immediate threat to human health and the environment,

the Agency will continue to evaluate these events on a case-by-case

basis. The Agency expects Chaparral to conduct the appropriate waste

analysis and comply with the criteria explained above in terms and

conditions of the exclusion.

V. Public Comments

A. How may I as an interested party submit comments?

The EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision and

on the applicability of the fate and transport model used to evaluate

the petition.

Please send three copies of your comments: Send two copies to

William Gallagher, Delisting Section, Multimedia Planning and

Permitting Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. Send the third copy to the Texas Natural

Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin,

Texas 78753. Identify your comments at the top with this regulatory

docket number: F-99-TXDEL-CHAPARRAL.

You should address requests for a hearing to the Acting Director,

Robert E. Hannesschlager, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division

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

75202.

B. How may I review the docket or obtain copies of the proposed

exclusion?

You may review the RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule at

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

Texas 75202. It is available for viewing in EPA Freedom of Information

Act Review Room from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for appointments. The

public may copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the

first 100 pages, and at fifteen cents per page for additional copies.

VI. Regulatory Impact

5 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

Texas 75202. It is available for viewing in EPA Freedom of Information

Act Review Room from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for appointments. The

public may copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the

first 100 pages, and at fifteen cents per page for additional copies.

VI. Regulatory Impact

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 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 E.O. 12866.

VII. Children's Health Protection

Under E.O. 13045, for all ``significant'' regulatory actions as

defined by E.O. 12866, EPA must provide a evaluation of the

environmental health or safety affect 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 E.O. 13045.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

as

defined by E.O. 12866, EPA must provide a evaluation of the

environmental health or safety affect 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 E.O. 13045.

VIII. 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.

IX. 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 (Public Law 96-511,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2050-

0053.

X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

re,

does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

IX. 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 (Public Law 96-511,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2050-

0053.

X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995,

EPA generally must prepare a written statement for rules with Federal

mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local, and tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. When such a statement is required for EPA

rules, under section 205 of the UMRA, EPA must identify and consider

alternatives, including the least costly, most cost-effective or least

burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The

EPA must select that alternative, unless the Administrator explains in

the final rule why it was not selected or it is inconsistent with law.

Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may significantly

or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it

must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency

plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small

governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in the development

of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental

mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them on compliance

with the regulatory requirements. The UMRA generally defines a Federal

mandate for regulatory purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty

upon state, local or tribal governments or the private sector

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.

XI. Intergovernmental Partnership

Under E.O. 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 X. UMRA above) and accordingly, this

action is exempt from the requirements of E.O. 12875.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: August 6, 1999.

Robert Hannesschlager,

Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division.

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

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

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

follows:

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

2. In Table 2 of appendix IX of part 261 it is proposed to add the

following waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as

follows:

Appendix IX to part 261--Wastes Excluded Under sections 260.20 and

260.22.

ENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

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

follows:

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

2. In Table 2 of appendix IX of part 261 it is proposed to add the

following waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as

follows:

Appendix IX to part 261--Wastes Excluded Under sections 260.20 and

260.22.

Table 2.--Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources

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

Facility Address Waste description

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

* * * * * *

*

Chaparral Steel Midlothian, L.P......... Midlothian, Texas.......... Leachate from Landfill No. 3, storm water

from the baghouse area, and other K061

wastewaters which have been pumped to

tank storage (at a maximum generation of

2500 cubic yards or 500,000 gallons per

calender year) (EPA Hazardous Waste No.

K061) generated at Chaparral Steel

Midlothian, L.P., Midlothian, Texas, and

is managed as nonhazardous solid waste

after [publication date of final rule].

Chaparral Steel must implement a

testing program that meets the following

conditions for the exclusion to be

valid:

(1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations

for the constituent total lead in the

approximately 2,500 cubic yards (500,000

gallons) per calender year of raw

leachate from Landfill No. 3, storm

water from the baghouse area, and other

K061 wastewaters that is transferred

from the storage tank to nonhazardous

management must not exceed 0.69 mg/1

(ppm). Constituents must be measured in

the waste by the method specified in SW-

846.

ns

for the constituent total lead in the

approximately 2,500 cubic yards (500,000

gallons) per calender year of raw

leachate from Landfill No. 3, storm

water from the baghouse area, and other

K061 wastewaters that is transferred

from the storage tank to nonhazardous

management must not exceed 0.69 mg/1

(ppm). Constituents must be measured in

the waste by the method specified in SW-

846.

(2) Waste Holding and Handling: Chaparral

Steel must store as hazardous all

leachate waste from Landfill No. 3,

storm water from the bag house area, and

other K061 wastewaters 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 waste do not exceed the levels set

forth in Condition (1), then the waste

is nonhazardous and may be managed and

disposed of in accordance with all

applicable solid waste regulations. If

constituent levels in a sample exceed

the delisting levels set in Condition

(1), the waste volume corresponding to

this sample must be treated until

delisting levels are met or returned to

the original storage tank. Treatment is

designated as precipitation,

flocculation, and filtering in a

wastewater treatment system to remove

metals from the wastewater. If the

delisting level cannot be met, then the

waste must be 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.

Chaparral Steel must analyze one

composite sample from each batch of

untreated wastewater transferred from

the hazardous waste storage tank to non-

hazardous waste management. Each

composited batch sample must be

analyzed, prior to non-hazardous

management of the waste in the batch

represented by that sample, for the

constituent lead as listed in Condition

rding to SW-846

methodologies.

Chaparral Steel must analyze one

composite sample from each batch of

untreated wastewater transferred from

the hazardous waste storage tank to non-

hazardous waste management. Each

composited batch sample must be

analyzed, prior to non-hazardous

management of the waste in the batch

represented by that sample, for the

constituent lead as listed in Condition

(1). Chaparral may treat the waste as

specified in Condition (2).

If EPA judges the treatment process to

be effective during the operating

conditions used during the initial

verification testing, Chaparral Steel

may replace the testing requirement in

Condition (3)(A) with the testing

requirement in Condition (3)(B).

Chaparral must continue to test as

specified in (3)(A) until and unless

notified by EPA or designated authority

that testing in Condition (3)(A) may be

replaced with by Condition (3)(B).

(A) Initial Verification Testing:

Representative composite samples from

the first eight (8) full-scale treated

batches of wastewater from the K061

leachate/wastewater storage tank must be

analyzed for the constituent lead as

listed in Condition (1), Chaparral must

report to EPA the operational and

analytical test data, including quality

control information, obtained from these

initial full scale treatment batches

within 90 days of the eighth treatment

batch.

(B) Subsequent Verification Testing:

Following notification by EPA, Chaparral

Steel may substitute the testing

conditions in (3)(B) for (3)(A).

Chaparral Steel must analyze

representative composite samples from

the treated full scale batches on an

annual basis. If delisting levels for

any constituent listed in Condition (1)

are exceeded in the annual sample,

Chaparral must reinstitute complete

testing as required in Condition (3)(A)

notification by EPA, Chaparral

Steel may substitute the testing

conditions in (3)(B) for (3)(A).

Chaparral Steel must analyze

representative composite samples from

the treated full scale batches on an

annual basis. If delisting levels for

any constituent listed in Condition (1)

are exceeded in the annual sample,

Chaparral must reinstitute complete

testing as required in Condition (3)(A).

As stated in Condition (3) Chaparral

must continue to test all batches of

untreated waste to determine if

delisting criteria are met before

managing the wastewater from the K061

tank as nonhazardous.

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If

Chaparral Steel significantly changes

the treatment process established under

Condition (3) (e.g., use of new

treatment agents), Chaparral Steel must

notify the Agency in writing. After

written approval by EPA, Chaparral Steel

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 Texas, 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 U.S.C. 1001

and 42 U.S.C

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 U.S.C. 1001

and 42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify that the

information contained in or accompanying

this document is true, accurate and

complete.

As to the (those) identified section(s)

of this document for which I cannot

personally verify its (their) truth and

accuracy, I certify as the company

official having supervisory

responsibility for the persons who,

acting under my direct instructions,

made the verification that this

information is true, accurate and

complete.

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, anytime

after disposal of the delisted waste,

Chaparral Steel possesses or is

otherwise made aware of any

environmental data (including but not

limited to leachate data or groundwater

monitoring data) or any other data

relevant to the delisted waste

indicating that any constituent

identified for the delisting

verification testing is at level higher

than the delisting level allowed by the

Regional Administrator or his delegate

in granting the petition, then the

facility must report the data, in

writing, to the Regional Administrator

or his delegate within 10 days of first

possessing or being made aware of that

data

he delisted waste

indicating that any constituent

identified for the delisting

verification testing is at level higher

than the delisting level allowed by the

Regional Administrator or his delegate

in granting the petition, then the

facility must report the data, in

writing, to the Regional Administrator

or his delegate within 10 days of first

possessing or being made aware of that

data.

(B) Based on the information described in

paragraphs (5), or (6)(A) and any other

information received from any source,

the Regional Administrator or his

delegate will make a preliminary

determination as to whether the reported

information requires Agency action to

protect human health or the environment.

Further action may include suspending,

or revoking the exclusion, or other

appropriate response necessary to

protect human health and the

environment.

(C) If the Regional Administrator or his

delegate determines that the reported

information does require Agency action,

the Regional Administrator or his

delegate will notify the facility in

writing of the actions the Regional

Administrator or his delegate believes

are necessary to protect human health

and the environment. The notice shall

include a statement of the proposed

action and a statement providing the

facility with an opportunity to present

information as to why the proposed

Agency action is not necessary. The

facility shall have 10 days from the

date of the Regional Administrator or

delegate's notice to present such

information.

(D) Following the receipt of information

from the facility described in paragraph

l

include a statement of the proposed

action and a statement providing the

facility with an opportunity to present

information as to why the proposed

Agency action is not necessary. The

facility shall have 10 days from the

date of the Regional Administrator or

delegate's notice to present such

information.

(D) Following the receipt of information

from the facility described in paragraph

(6)(C) or (if no information is

presented under paragraph (6)(C)) the

initial receipt of information described

in paragraph (5) or (6)(A), the Regional

Administrator or his delegate will issue

a final written determination describing

the Agency actions that are necessary to

protect human health or the environment.

Any required action described in the

Regional Administrator or delegate's

determination shall become effective

immediately, unless the Regional

Administrator or his delegate provides

otherwise.

(7) Notification Requirements: Chaparral

Steel 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. 99-21941 Filed 8-23-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P