United States
                                 Environmental Protection
                                 Agency
                        Solid Waste and
                        Emergency Response
                        (OS-305)
             EPA/530-F-93-005
             Spring 1993
 v>EPA
Introduction

What is delisting?
  Delisting is a rulemaking proce-
dure by which facilities, if success-
ful, are relieved of the obligation to
handle specific wastes as hazard-
ous in accordance  with the  Re-
source Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA).  EPA defined these
wastes as hazardous by listing them
in the Code of Federal Regulations
(40 CFR 261, Subpart D). In some
cases,  however, a specific facility
might generate a  waste  that does
not exhibit any hazardous charac-
teristics for which the waste was
listed and does not present a hazard
to either human health or the envi-
ronment for any other reason.
Therefore, to avoid placing an un-
necessary  regulatory burden on
such facilities,  RCRA regulations
provide a petition process for case-
by-case exclusions or "delistings"
of specific wastes  from the hazard-
ous waste lists.

How does a facility obtain  a
delisting?
  Under 40 CFR  260.20 and
260.22, facilities may petition EPA
to delist (or exclude)  a specific
waste from the hazardous  waste
regulations.  The general proce-
dures for  delisting a hazardous
waste  are described in a guidance
manual (see adjacent box). A delist-
ing generally applies to only the
specific waste generated at the facil-
ity and does not  apply  to wastes
from any  other facility.  Under
RCRA, states authorized to admin-
ister a delisting program in lieu of
the federal  program also may
                                 Office of Solid Waste
Environmental
Fact  Sheet
                                  Deli sting Petitions and the
                                  Petition Review Process
exclude wastes from hazardous
waste regulations.  Facilities that
manage their wastes in states with
delisting authorization should peti-
tion the state for an exclusion rather
than EPA. Even in unauthorized
states, EPA encourages petitioners
to contact state authorities to deter-
mine what procedures might be
necessary for delisting under state
laws. A facility may treat its waste
as nonhazardous only after EPA or
an authorized state grants a final
exclusion.

What are the different types of
exclusions?

  A standard exclusion, requiring no
conditional  testing, is granted
when a petition demonstrates that
the waste meets the delisting crite-
ria and that variability of the waste
is not of concern. A conditional ex-
clusion  is granted when the waste
being generated is expected to be
highly variable in composition.
Such exclusions typically establish
delisting levels for key waste con-
stituents and require the facility to
test the waste periodically to ensure
the waste remains nonhazardous.
An upfront  exclusion is a special
form  of conditional exclusion
granted for  a waste that is not yet
generated. In this type of exclusion
the petitioner demonstrates that the
waste will meet the delisting crite-
ria based on preliminary treatabil-
ity studies (e.g., pilot plant data).
For upfront exclusions, the peti-
tioner typically performs extensive
verification  testing once the full-
scale process is operational  to en-
sure delisting levels are obtained.


An Overview of the
Petition Review
Process

Draff  sampling and analysis
plans
  EPA encourages facilities to con-
tact EPA's Office  of Solid  Waste
   Guidance Manual
     A step-by-step manual is available to assist petitioners in preparing and
   submitting a delisting petition. The manual is entitled Petitions to DeUst
   Hazardous Waste: A Guidance Manual, EPA/530-R-93-007, Copies of the
   manual are available through the National Technical Information Service
   (703-487-4650), as publication number PB 93-169 365.
     For further information on submitting a delisting petition or draft sam-
   pling and analysis plan to EPA, contact the Delisting Section, Office of Solid
   Waste, at 202-260-4770/6946 or at the address below:
    i US. Environmental Protection Agency
     Delisting Section
     Office of Solid Waste
     (Mail Code OS-333)
     401 M Street, SW,
     Washington, DC 20460
                             i Printed on paper that contains at least 50 percent recycled fiber.

-------
(OSW) for assistance in their peti-
tion efforts before submitting  a
formal petition. In order to mini-
mize repetitive EPA requests for
information and review of incom-
plete information, petitioners
should submit draft sampling and
analysis plans prior to waste char-
acterization efforts.  Early discus-
sions with OSW about  the nature
and extent of information that
should be included in a petition
also are useful.
   Successful
   Petitions
     The majority of excluded
   wastes  are  metal-bearing
   wastes (such as F006 and F019
   wastewater treatment sludges
   and treated K061  electric arc
   furnace  dusts). Historically,
   only 15 to 20 percent of submit-
   ted delisting petitions have
   been granted. However, any
   treatment residual that  meets
   current BOAT levels usually will
   be a good delisting candidate.
Petition review process

  EPA's review process for delist-
ing petitions consists of the follow-
ing major steps: (1) a completeness
check and a request for additional
information needed, (2) a technical
evaluation of the waste  analysis
and process data, (3) a proposal of a
decision in the Federal Register, and
(4)  a  review of public comments
and promulgation of a final  deci-
sion. If a petition is incomplete, EPA
will request  further  information.
EPA typically will dismiss petitions
from further review if a petitioner
does not provide a complete peti-
tion.  A petitioner may submit a
new petition after collecting the
missing information. Once EPA has
evaluated a complete petition, it
proposes  a decision to grant or
deny the petition. EPA must pub-
lish proposed decisions in the Fed-
eral Register and invite  public
comments before granting or deny-
ing the petition. The final notice
contains EPA's response to public
comments, the final decision, and
regulatory language amending 40
CFR 261, Appendix IX, for delisted
wastes.  Because delisting is a rule-
making process, it typically takes
about two years for a formal peti-
tion to make it through EPA's re-
view process and for a final rule to
be published in the Federal Register.
EPA usually reviews delisting peti-
tions in chronological order based
on the date of receipt. Therefore, if
a backlog of petitions develops,
some delistings decisions might be
delayed. Recently, however, EPA
has been successful in significantly
reducing the backlog.


Petition Information

Requirements
  The petitioner's guidance man-
ual noted earlier provides details
on the information needed for de-
listing and assists interested facili-
ties in submitting a  credible and
complete petition. Generally, a
complete petition includes the fol-
lowing information:

  A detailed description of the
   manufacturing and treatment
   processes  generating   the
   petitioned waste and the volume
   of waste generated.
  A discussion of why the waste is
   listed  as hazardous  and  a
   description of how the waste is
   managed.
  A discussion  of why samples
   collected in  support  of  the
   demonstration are thought to
   represent  the  full range of
   variability of the petitioned
   waste.
  Results from the analyses of a
   minimum of four representative
   samples of the petitioned waste
   for:
    Applicable hazardous waste
    characteristics (ignitability,
    corrosivity, or reactivity).
    Total and  leachable con-
    centrations of all  hazardous
    constituents likely  to  be
    present  in  the  petitioned
    waste.  For example,  the
    constituents listed  in  the
    Toxicity  Characteristic (TC)
    typically  are among the
    constituents required (see 40
    CFR 261.24).
    Total oil and grease content.
 Chain-of-custody records and
  quality control (QC) data for all
  analytical data. Appropriate
  QC procedures are described
  fully in Chapters 1 and 4 and
  in each  test method of EPA
  publication  SW-846,  Test
  Methods for Evaluating Solid
   Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods
  (Third Edition).  Analyses  are
  expected to conform  to  the
  standards of SW-846.
 A statement  signed  by an
  authorized representative of the
  facility  certifying  that  all
  information is accurate and
  complete,
 Ground-water  monitoring
   information, if the petitioned
  waste has been disposed of
  in a  land-based hazardous
  waste   management   unit.
  Ground-water monitoring data
   might not be required in some
   cases, therefore the petitioner
   should consult the guidance
   manual and EPA if unsure.  The
   petitioner  may resubmit data
   already collected in response to
   existing  RCRA regulations or
   cite existing reports submitted to
   EPA  that provide the necessary
   data.
   See the guidance manual for a
more detailed description of what
information EPA usually requires
and the appropriate sampling and
analysis procedures.


Technical  Review

EPA's use of modeling toots
   EPA often evaluates the potential
hazards of waste through the use of
appropriate fate and transport
models. These models calculate
possible exposure to hazardous
chemicals that  might  be released
from petitioned wastes  after  dis-
posal, based on a reasonable, worst-
case management scenario.  A key
exposure  route  of concern is

-------
ingestion of contaminated ground
water. To evaluate this concern, the
Agency typically relies on leachate
data as determined by an appropri-
ate leaching test (e.g., the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
[TCLP] used in the TC; see 40 CFR
261.24). The  leachable concentra-
tions and the estimated waste vol-
ume then are used as inputs to an
appropriate  fate and transport
model, for example, EPA's Com-
posite  Model  for  Landfills
(EPACML), to predict the constitu-
ent concentrations in the ground
water at a hypothetical exposure
point. The output of this model, the
dilution/attenuation  factor (DAF),
represents  the reduction in con-
taminant concentration expected to
occur during transport through soil
and ground water,  from  the
leachate release point (bottom  of
the landfill) to an exposure point
(receptor well). The DAF is calcu-
lated by dividing the contaminant
concentration in the leachate leav-
ing the landfill by the concentration
at the receptor well. Exposure-point
concentrations derived from the
DAFs  typically are  compared  to
drinking water standards or other
EPA health-based  levels.  The
leachate from small waste volumes
undergoes greater dilution/attenu-


Tabiel. EPACML DAFs
Waste
Volume
(cubic yards/yr)
1,000
1,500
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
25,000
50,000
100,000
200,000
300,000
Dilution
Attenuation
Factor (DAF)
100
90
79
57
48
43
36
24
19
15
13
12
ation than leachate from larger
waste volumes, because larger vol-
umes release greater amounts of
leachate into  the ground water.
Table 1 provides a listing of some of
the DAFs  generated  using the
EPACML for annual waste volumes
ranging from 1,000 to 300,000 cubic
yards per year. As an example of
how the DAFs in Table 1 are used in
the delisting process, EPA would
use a DAF of 15 from Table 1 for
100,000 cubic yards of waste gener-
ated annually and the healuvbased
level  in Table  2 for arsenic (0.05
ppm) to calculate a delisting level
for this constituent in the TCLP test
of 0.75 ppm (e.g., 15 x 0.05 ppm).
(See the Federal Register notice pub-
lished on July 18,1991,56 FR 32993,
Table 2. Health-Based Levels for Selected Hazardous Constituents
Compounds
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Bertzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Cadmium
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chromium
Cyanide
l,2-Dibromo-3-chloroproparte
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
PCBs
Pentachlorophenol
Selenium
Styrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,2,4-Triehlorobenzene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
HBL (ppm)
0.05
2
0,005
0.0002
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0002
0.075
0,005
0.005
0.007
0.7
0.001
0.015
0.002
0.1
0.0005
0.001
0.05
0.1
0.005
1
0.07
0.2
0.005
0.002
10

-------
for more details on the use of the
EPACML in delisting evaluations.)

Health-based levels

  The health-based levels used by
EPA in  delisting decision-making
are updated periodically in order to
stay consistent with the latest
drinking  water standards (e.g.,
Maximum Contaminant Levels, or
MCLs),  risk information, and toxi-
cological data.  Table 2 gives some
delisting health-based levels cur-
rently used by OSW  for selected
constituents.  An up-to-date list of
health-based levels of  the constitu-
ents of  concern is  normally con-
tained in the  RCRA public  docket
for the latest delisting rulemakings.
The list is available from OSW upon
request.  Also, a  large number of
EPA-verified health-based levels are
available through EPA's Integrated
Risk Information System (MS). (For
more information on accessing IRIS,
contact the IRIS User Support Group
at 513-569-7254.)

Agency's evaluation of
ground-water monitoring data

  As noted above, petitions to ex-
clude wastes contained in land-
based  waste management units
should  include ground-water
monitoring information relevant to
the unit(s) in which the petitioned
waste is managed. If the data indi-
cate that the waste in question has
caused ground-water contamina-
tion, EPA may deny the petition.
How EPA may use ground-water
monitoring data in delisting is de-
scribed in a Federal Register notice
(October 12,1989; 54 FR 41930).

Spot-check program

  EPA may conduct announced or
unannounced spot-checks at some
facilities in order to verify the peti-
tion information and data submit-
ted and to generate analytical data
of its own to resolve ambiguities in
the petitioner's data.  A spot-check
visit to a selected  facility may be
initiated before finalizing a petition
decision or after granting an
exclusion.
  Communications Services Branch (OS-305)
  Office of Solid Waste
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  401 M Street, SW,
  Washington, DC 20460
                                                     FIRST CLASS MAIL
                                                     Postage and Fees
                                                          Paid
                                                          EPA
                                                          G-35
  Official Business, Penalty for Private Use $300

-------