[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32746-32753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15884]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-5525-3]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
grant a petition to Bekaert Steel Corporation (Bekaert) of Rogers,
Arkansas to exclude (or ``delist''), certain solid wastes generated at
its facility from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR
261.31 and 261.32 (hereinafter all sectional references are to 40 CFR
unless otherwise indicated). This action responds to a delisting
petition submitted under 40 CFR 260.20, which allows any person to
petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of 40 CFR
Parts 260 through 266, 268 and 273, and under 40 CFR 260.22, which
specifically provides generators the opportunity to petition the
Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator specific'' basis from
the hazardous waste lists. This proposed decision is based on an
evaluation of waste-specific information provided by the petitioner. If
this proposed decision is finalized, the petitioned waste will be
conditionally excluded from the requirements of hazardous waste
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
DATES: The EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision.
Comments will be accepted until August 9, 1996. Comments postmarked
after the close of the comment period will be stamped ``late.''
Any person may request a hearing on this proposed decision by
filing a request with Jane N. Saginaw, Regional Administrator, whose
address appears below, by July 10, 1996. The request must contain the
information prescribed in 40 CFR 260.20(d).
ADDRESSES: Send three copies of your comments. Two copies should be
sent to William Gallagher, Delisting Program, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. A third copy should be sent to
the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, P.O. Box
8913, 8001 National Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72219-8913. Identify
your comments at the top with this regulatory docket number: ``F-96-
ARDEL-BEKAERT.''
[[Page 32747]]
Requests for a hearing should be addressed to the Regional
Administrator, Region 6, Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202.
The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule is located at the
Region 6, Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202 and is available for viewing in the EPA library on the 12th
floor from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for appointments. The docket may
also be viewed at the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology, 8001 National Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72219-8913. The
public may copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the
first 100 pages, and at $0.15 per page for additional copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: For technical information concerning
this notice, contact David Vogler, Delisting Program (6PD-O), Region 6,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202,
(214) 665-7428.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Authority
On January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim final
regulations implementing Section 3001 of RCRA, the EPA published an
amended list of hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific
sources. This list has been amended several times, and is published in
Sec. 261.31 and Sec. 261.32. These wastes are listed as hazardous
because they typically and frequently exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous wastes identified in Subpart C of Part 261
(i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or meet the
criteria for listing contained in Sec. 261.11 (a)(2) or (a)(3).
Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste
that is described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a
specific waste from an individual facility meeting the listing
description may not be hazardous. For this reason, Sec. 260.20 and
Sec. 260.22 provide an exclusion procedure, allowing persons to
demonstrate that a specific waste from a particular generating facility
should not be regulated as a hazardous waste.
To have their wastes excluded, petitioners must show that wastes
generated at their facilities do not meet any of the criteria for which
the wastes were listed. See Sec. 260.22(a) and the background documents
for the listed wastes. In addition, the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 require the Agency to consider any factors
(including additional constituents) other than those for which the
waste was listed, if there is a reasonable basis to believe that such
additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. Accordingly,
a petitioner also must demonstrate that the waste does not exhibit any
of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity, and toxicity), and must present sufficient information for
the Agency to determine whether the waste contains any of the other
identified constituents at hazardous levels. See Sec. 260.22(a), 42
U.S.C. Sec. 6921(f), and the background documents for the listed
wastes. Although wastes which are ``delisted'' (i.e., excluded) have
been evaluated to determine whether or not they exhibit any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste, generators remain obligated under
RCRA to determine whether or not their waste remains non-hazardous
based on the hazardous waste characteristics.
In addition, residues from the treatment, storage, or disposal of
listed hazardous wastes and mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes
are also considered hazardous wastes. See Secs. 261.3 (a)(2)(iv) and
(c)(2)(i), referred to as the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively. Such wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain
hazardous wastes until excluded. On December 6, 1991, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the ``mixture/derived
from'' rules and remanded them to the Agency on procedural grounds. See
Shell Oil Co. v. EPA, 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1991). On March 3, 1992,
EPA reinstated the mixture and derived-from rules, and solicited
comments on other ways to regulate waste mixtures and residues (57 FR
7628). On December 21, 1995, the EPA proposed rules related to waste
mixtures and residues at 60 FR 66344 and invited public comment. These
references should be consulted for more information regarding mixtures
and residues.
B. Approach Used To Evaluate This Petition
Bekaert's petition requests a delisting for a listed hazardous
waste. In making the initial delisting determination, the EPA evaluated
the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in
Sec. 261.11 (a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, the EPA agreed
with the petitioner that the waste is non-hazardous with respect to the
original listing criteria. (If the EPA had found, based on this review,
that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for which the
waste was originally listed, the EPA would have proposed to deny the
petition.) The EPA then evaluated the waste with respect to other
factors or criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to
believe that such additional factors could cause the waste to be
hazardous. The EPA considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, and
considered the toxicity of the constituents, the concentration of the
constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to
bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from
the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned
waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste variability.
For this delisting determination, the EPA used such information to
identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground water, surface water,
air) for hazardous constituents present in the petitioned waste. The
EPA determined that disposal in a Subtitle D landfill is the most
reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for Bekaert's petitioned
waste, and that the major exposure route of concern would be ingestion
of contaminated ground water. Therefore, the EPA used a particular fate
and transport model to predict the maximum allowable concentrations of
hazardous constituents that may be released from the petitioned waste
after disposal and to determine the potential impact of the disposal of
Bekaert's petitioned waste on human health and the environment.
Specifically, the EPA used the maximum estimated waste volume and the
maximum reported extract concentrations as inputs to estimate the
constituent concentrations in the ground water at a hypothetical
receptor well downgradient from the disposal site. The calculated
receptor well concentrations (referred to as compliance-point
concentrations) were then compared directly to the current Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SWDA) or health-based levels derived from Verified Reference Doses
(RfDs). The value used for copper is an action level for treatment of a
water supply in lieu of a MCL (40 CFR Sec. 141.80).
The EPA believes that this fate and transport model represents a
reasonable worst-case scenario for disposal of the petitioned waste in
a landfill, and that a reasonable worst-case scenario is appropriate
when evaluating whether a waste should be relieved of the protective
management constraints of
[[Page 32748]]
RCRA Subtitle C. The use of a reasonable worst-case scenario results in
conservative values for the compliance-point concentrations and ensures
that the waste, once removed from hazardous waste regulation, will not
pose a threat to human health or the environment. Because a delisted
waste is no longer subject to hazardous waste control, the EPA is
generally unable to predict and does not presently control how a waste
will be managed after delisting. Therefore, the EPA does not currently
consider extensive site-specific factors when applying the fate and
transport model.
The EPA also considers the applicability of groundwater monitoring
data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. The EPA normally
requests groundwater monitoring data for wastes currently managed or
have ever been managed in a land based management unit. Groundwater
monitoring data provides significant additional information important
to fully characterize the potential impact (if any) of the disposal of
a petitioned waste on human health and the environment. In this case,
the EPA determined that the groundwater monitoring data was not
applicable to the evaluation of the petitioned waste. Specifically,
Bekaert currently disposes of the petitioned waste generated from its
filter press which is part of their wastewater treatment facility in an
off-site RCRA hazardous waste landfill (which is not owned/operated by
Bekaert). This landfill did not begin accepting the petitioned waste
generated by the filter press until September 1991. In other words, the
petitioned waste comprises a small fraction of the total waste managed
in the off-site units. The Agency, therefore, believes that any ground-
water monitoring data from the landfill would not be meaningful for an
evaluation of the specific effect of the petitioned waste on ground
water. However, the potential impact of these wastes on ground water is
predicted through the application of a fate and transport model.
Finally, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
specifically require the EPA to provide notice and an opportunity for
comment before granting or denying a final exclusion. Thus, a final
decision will not be made until all timely public comments (including
those at public hearings, if any) on today's proposal are addressed.
II. Disposition of Delisting Petition
Bekaert Steel Corporation, One Bekaert Drive, Rogers, Arkansas,
72757
A. Petition for Exclusion
Bekaert, located in Rogers, Arkansas, manufactures steel cord by
reducing the diameter of steel rods followed by electroplating and
further reduction. Bekaert petitioned the Agency to exclude its
wastewater treatment filter cake presently listed as EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F006--``Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating
operations except from the following processes: (1) Sulfuric acid
anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating on carbon steel; (3) zinc
plating (segregated basis) on carbon steel; (5) cleaning/stripping
associated with tin, zinc, and aluminum plating on carbon steel; and
(6) chemical etching and milling of aluminum''. The listed constituents
of concern for EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006 are: cadmium, hexavalent
chromium, nickel and cyanide (complexed) (see 40 CFR part 261, Appendix
VII).
Bekaert petitioned the EPA to exclude its waste filter cake because
it does not believe that the waste meets the criteria for which it was
listed. Bekaert also believes that the waste does not contain any other
constituents that would render it hazardous. Review of this petition
included consideration of the original listing criteria, as well as the
additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) of 1984. See Section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6921(f), and 40
CFR Sec. 260.22(d) (2)-(4). Today's proposal to grant this petition for
delisting is the result of the EPA's evaluation of Bekaert's petition.
B. Background
On September 11, 1995, Bekaert petitioned the EPA to exclude, from
the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR Sec. 261.31 and
Sec. 261.32, its wastewater filter cake generated from its wastewater
treatment system. Bekaert subsequently provided additional information
to complete its petition.
In support of its petition, Bekaert submitted: (1) Descriptions of
its manufacturing and wastewater treatment processes, including
schematic diagrams; (2) a list of all raw materials and Material Safety
Data Sheets (MSDSs) for all trade name products used in the
manufacturing and waste treatment processes; (3) results from total
constituent analyses for fourteen metals including the eight Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) metals listed in Sec. 261.24 (i.e., the TC metals)
and antimony, beryllium, copper, nickel, thallium, and zinc from
representative samples of the petitioned waste; (4) results from the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW-846 Method 1311)
for fourteen metals which include the eight TC metals, and antimony,
beryllium, copper, nickel, thallium, and zinc from representative
samples of the petitioned waste; (5) results from total constituent
analysis for total and reactive sulfide and cyanide for representative
samples of the petitioned waste; (6) results from total oil and grease
analyses from representative samples of the petitioned waste; (7) test
results and information regarding the hazardous characteristics of
ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity; and (8) results from total
constituent analyses for certain volatile and semi-volatile organic
compounds from representative samples of the petitioned waste.
Bekaert manufactures steel cord which is sold to the tire
manufacturing industry for use in reinforcing tires. The steel cord is
produced from steel rod which has been reduced in size and
electroplated with a copper and zinc alloy.
The manufacturing processes contribute to the petitioned waste from
the following sources: water from the caustic scrubbers, water from the
hydrochloric acid scrubbers, water from the rinse used to remove soap
from wire, water from the cooling water bath following fluidized bed
heater, waste acid from the hydrochloric acid pickling, water from the
rinse following the zinc plating bath, water from the cooling bath
following induction heating, phosphoric acid from the phosphoric acid
bath, water from the phosphoric acid rinse bath and the spent oil/water
mixture (non-petroleum) used as a lubricant in the process.
Wastewaters from the manufacturing process are collected and stored
in four central tanks prior to discharge to the wastewater treatment
plant. The petitioned waste is generated from the wastewater treatment
plant and not directly from the manufacturing process. Wastewaters are
transferred from the holding tanks to a treatment tank where it is
neutralized with sodium hydroxide. After neutralization, one of several
methods are employed to remove solids: (1) A polymer is added to
promote flocculation. This wastewater is then sent to a sludge
thickening tank from which the sludge is sent to the filter press; (2)
the wastewater is routed to an ultrafiltration unit to remove solids
which are routed to the filter press; or (3) the wastewater is routed
to a clarifier where a polymer is added to aid in solids precipitation.
The solids are routed to the sludge thickening tank and then to the
filter press.
[[Page 32749]]
The petitioned waste is dropped from the filter press at the end of
the wastewater treatment process into a 18 x 8 x 5 foot hopper. The
F006 filter press cake is currently sent to a permitted hazardous waste
facility for disposal.
To collect representative samples, petitioners are normally
requested to divide the unit into four quadrants (not exceeding 10,000
square feet per quadrant) and randomly collect five full-depth core
samples from each quadrant. The five full-depth core samples are then
composited (mixed) by quadrant to produce a total of four composite
samples. See Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes: Physical/
Chemical Methods, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Publication SW-846 (third edition), November 1986, and
Petitions to Delist Hazardous Wastes--A Guidance Manual, (second
edition), U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, (EPA/530-R-93-007), March
1993.
Bekaert submitted analytical results from five composite filter
cake samples collected from the hoppers at five different days taken at
intervals during a period between May 25, 1995, and July 10, 1995. This
was done to demonstrate that the waste composition did not vary with
time. In order account for spatial variability, grab samples were
collected from four randomly selected sample locations based on a grid
pattern that divided each hopper into ten grids. The entire depth
(approximately five feet) of each hopper was sampled. A composite of
the four grab samples was obtained to represent that day's sample.
Bekaert developed a list of constituents of concern from comparing
a list of all raw materials used in the plant that could potentially
appear in the petitioned waste with those found in 40 CFR Sec. 261,
Appendix VIII, as well as the following six constituents not found in
Appendix VIII: acetone, ethylbenzene, isophorone, 4-methyl-2-pentanone,
styrene, and total xylenes. Based on this review, it was not
anticipated that any of the Appendix VIII organic compounds or any of
the six additional organic compounds would be present in the petitioned
waste.
Using the list of constituents of concern, Bekaert analyzed the
five composite samples for the total concentrations (i.e., mass of a
particular constituent per mass of waste) of the eight TCLP metals,
antimony, beryllium, copper, nickel, thallium, zinc, selected volatile
and semi-volatile organic constituents, and oil and grease content.
These five samples were also analyzed to determine whether the waste
exhibited ignitable, corrosive, or reactive properties as defined,
respectively, under Sec. 261.21, Sec. 261.22, and Sec. 261.23,
including analysis for total constituent concentrations of cyanide,
sulfide, reactive cyanide, and reactive sulfide. These five samples
were also analyzed for TCLP concentrations (i.e., mass of a particular
constituent per unit volume of extract) of the eight TC metals, and
antimony, beryllium, copper, nickel, thallium, and zinc.
C. Agency Analysis
Bekaert used SW-846 Methods 7041, 7091, 7191, and 7196A, in
respective order, to quantify the total constituent concentrations and
leachable (TCLP) concentrations of antimony, beryllium, chromium, and
hexavalent chromium; and SW-846 Method 6010A was used to quantify total
constituent concentrations and leachable (TCLP) concentrations of
arsenic, barium, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver,
thallium, and zinc in samples. SW-846 methods 7471 and 7470 were used
to determine total and leachable (in respective order) constituent
concentrations for mercury.
Using SW 846 Method 9070, Bekaert determined that the petitioned
waste had a maximum oil and grease content of 5700 mg/kg.
Characteristic testing was conducted on the samples of the
petitioned waste, including analysis for reactive cyanide and reactive
sulfide (SW-846 Methods 7.3.3.2 and 7.3.4.1, respectively),
ignitability (ASTM D-4982B), and corrosivity (SW-846 Method 9045).
Bekaert used SW-846 Methods 9012 and 4500 to quantify concentrations of
the total and complexed cyanide, respectively, in the samples. Bekaert
used Method 9030A to quantify the total constituent concentrations of
sulfide in the samples.
Table 1 presents the maximum total constituent and leachate
concentrations for the eight TC metals, antimony, beryllium, copper,
nickel, thallium, and zinc for the composite samples of the petitioned
waste. Table 1 also presents maximum reactive cyanide and reactive
sulfide concentrations.
The detection limits presented in Table 1 represent the lowest
concentrations quantifiable by Bekaert when using the appropriate SW-
846 or Agency-approved analytical methods to analyze its waste.
(Detection limits may vary according to the waste and waste matrix
being analyzed, i.e., the ``cleanliness'' waste matrices varies and
``dirty'' waste matrices may cause interferences, thus raising the
detection limits).
Bekaert used SW-846 Methods 8240 and 8270 to quantify the total
constituent concentrations of 30 volatile and 71 semi-volatile organic
compounds, respectively, in the waste samples. This suite of
constituents included all of the organic constituents listed in
Sec. 261.24 as well as other organic compounds commonly analyzed for in
hazardous waste samples. Bekaert used SW-846 Methods 8240, 8270, 8150A,
3510A, and 8080 to quantify the leachable concentrations of 11
volatile, 13 semi-volatile, 2 chlorinated herbicides, and 7 pesticides
(all organic compounds), respectively, in the waste samples, following
extraction by SW-846 Method 1311 (TCLP). This suite of constituents
included all of the organic constituents listed in Sec. 261.24. Table 2
presents the maximum total and leachate concentrations of all detected
organic constituents in Bekaert's waste and waste extract samples.
Lastly, on the basis of explanations and analytical data provided by
Bekaert, none of the analyzed samples exhibited the characteristics of
ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. See Sec. 261.21, Sec. 261.22
and Sec. 261.23.
Table 1.--Maximum Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations (ppm)
\1\ Filter Press Waste
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total TCLP
constituent leachate
Inorganic constituents analyses analyses
(mg/kg) (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony........................................ < 0.50 0.34
Arsenic......................................... < 5.00 < 0.05
Barium.......................................... 2.5 1.3
Beryllium....................................... < 0.10 < 0.05
Cadmium......................................... 3.1 < 0.05
Chromium........................................ 68 < 0.05
Chromium (hexavalent)........................... < 5.0 < 0.05
Copper.......................................... 580 12
Lead............................................ < 5.0 < 0.10
Mercury......................................... < 0.125 < 0.005
Nickel.......................................... 43 1.1
Selenium........................................ 6.4 0.091
Silver.......................................... 1.2 0.2
Thallium........................................ < 10 < 0.10
Zinc............................................ 16000 470
Cyanide (complexed) (total)..................... 0.31 0.030
Cyanide (soluble)............................... < 0.13 NA
Cyanide (reactive).............................. < 0.050 NA
Sulfide (reactive).............................. <10 NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
< Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the detection limit
specified in the table.
\1\ These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent
found in any one sample. These levels do not represent the specific
levels found in one sample.
NA Denotes that the constituent was not analyzed.
[[Page 32750]]
Table 2.--Maximum Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations (ppm)
\1\ Filter Press Sludge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total TCLP
constituent leachate
Organic constituents analyses analyses
(mg/kg) (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methyl Ethyl Ketone............................. 0.120 < 0.100
Dichloromethane................................. 0.008 NA
4-Methylphenol.................................. <1.0 0.067
------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 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 represent the specific
levels found in one sample.
NA Denotes that the constituent was not analyzed.
Bekaert submitted a signed certification stating that the maximum
volume of filter cake generated on an annual basis is 1,022 cubic yards
of waste. The EPA reviews a petitioner's estimates and, on occasion,
has requested a petitioner to re-evaluate estimated waste volume. The
EPA accepted Bekaert's certified estimate of 1,022 cubic yards of
annual generated waste. The petition was evaluated at a waste volume of
1,250 cubic yards of annual generated which is a more conservative
approach and also allows for future fluctuations in waste output.
The EPA does not generally verify submitted test data before
proposing delisting decisions. The sworn affidavit submitted with this
petition binds the petitioner to present truthful and accurate results.
The EPA, however, has maintained a spot-check sampling and analysis
program to verify the representative nature of the data for some
percentage of the submitted petitions. A spot-check visit to a selected
facility may be initiated before finalizing a delisting petition or
after granting a final exclusion.
D. Agency Evaluation
The EPA considered the appropriateness of alternative waste
management scenarios for Bekaert's petitioned waste and decided, based
on the information provided in the petition, that disposal in a
municipal solid waste landfill is the most reasonable, worst-case
scenario for this waste. Under a landfill disposal scenario, the major
exposure route of concern for any hazardous constituents would be
ingestion of contaminated ground water. The EPA, therefore, evaluated
Bekaert's petitioned waste using the modified EPACML which predicts the
potential for groundwater contamination from wastes that are
landfilled. See 56 FR 32993 (July 18, 1991), 56 FR 67197 (December 30,
1991), and the RCRA public docket for these notices for a detailed
description of the EPACML model, the disposal assumptions, and the
modifications made for delisting. This model, which includes both
unsaturated and saturated zone transport modules, was used to predict
reasonable worst-case contaminant levels in groundwater at a compliance
point (i.e., a receptor well serving as a drinking water supply).
Specifically, the model estimated the dilution/attenuation factor (DAF)
resulting from subsurface processes such as three-dimensional
dispersion and dilution from groundwater recharge for a specific volume
of waste. The EPA requests comments on the use of the EPACML as applied
to the evaluation of Bekaert's petitioned waste.
For the evaluation of Bekaert's petitioned waste, the EPA used the
EPACML to evaluate the mobility of the hazardous inorganic constituents
detected in the extract of samples of Bekaert's petitioned waste. The
EPA intends to evaluate petitions for generated wastes on a case-by-
case basis. The DAFs are currently calculated assuming an ongoing
process generates wastes for 20 years. EPA's evaluation, using a DAF of
96, maximum annual waste volume estimate of 1,250 cubic yards and the
maximum reported TCLP leachate concentrations (see Table 1), yielded
compliance-point concentrations (see Table 3) that are below the
current health-based levels used in delisting decision-making.
The maximum reported or calculated leachate concentrations of
antimony, barium, copper, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc in the
petitioned waste yielded compliance point concentrations below the
health-based levels used in delisting decision-making. The EPA did not
evaluate the mobility of the remaining inorganic constituents (i.e.,
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and thallium) in
Bekaert's waste because they were not detected in the leachate using
the appropriate analytical test methods (see Table 1). The EPA believes
that it is inappropriate to evaluate nondetectable concentrations of a
constituent of concern in its modeling efforts if the nondetectable
value was obtained using the appropriate analytical method. If a
constituent cannot be detected (when using the appropriate analytical
method with an adequate detection limit), the EPA assumes that the
constituent is not present and therefore does not present a threat to
human health or the environment.
Table 3.--EPACML: Calculated Compliance-Point Concentrations (ppm)
Petitioned Waste
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Levels of
point regulatory
Inorganic constituents concentrations concern 2
1 (mg/l) (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony................................. 0.0036 0.006
Barium................................... 0.014 2.0
Copper................................... 0.13 1.3
Nickel................................... 0.012 0.1
Selenium................................. 0.00096 0.05
Silver................................... 0.002 0.2
Zinc..................................... 4.90 10.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Using the maximum TCLP leachate level and based on a DAF of 96
calculated using the EPACML for an annual volume of 1,250 cubic yards.
\2\ See Docket Report on Health-Based Levels and Solubilities Used in
the Evaluation of Delisting Petitions, December 1994 located in the
RCRA public docket for today's notice.
The EPA also evaluated the potential hazard of methyl ethyl ketone,
4-methylphenol (p-cresol), and dichloromethane, the only organic
constituents detected in the total concentrations or TCLP extract of
samples of Bekaert's petitioned waste. Process information submitted by
Bekaert demonstrates that organic constituents are unlikely to be
present in the waste. Furthermore, the organic analysis submitted
indicated only trace levels of these three constituents. In any case,
the Agency notes that if the total levels (0.120, < 1.00, 0.008 mg/kg,
in respective order) of these trace constituents were evaluated using
the EPACML (conservatively assuming the total concentration of the
constituents would leach), the compliance levels (.00125, < 0.0104,
0.0000842 mg/l) at the theoretical compliance point would still be well
below health-based levels (20, 2, 0.005 mg/l, in respective order).
As reported in Table 1, reactive cyanide and reactive sulfide were
not detected in Bekaert's petitioned waste. The detection limits are
less than 0.050 mg/kg and less than 10 mg/kg, respectively. These
detection limit concentrations are below the EPA's interim standards of
250 and 500 ppm, respectively. See Interim Agency Thresholds for Toxic
Gas Generation, July 12, 1985, internal Agency Memorandum in the RCRA
public docket. Therefore, reactive cyanide and reactive sulfide levels
are not of concern.
Complexed cyanide was identified in one of the five samples
analyzed at a total concentration of 0.31 mg/kg and at a leachable
(TCLP extract) concentration of 0.030 mg/1. The leachable amount found
in the one sample of waste is below the appropriate health-base
[[Page 32751]]
number of 0.2 mg/1 (see docket) even without considering the dilution
effects of the fate and transport of the constituent. Therefore, since
Bekaert does not use cyanide in any of their processes and the
complexed cyanide was identified in only one sample at concentrations
below the health-based concentration, complexed cyanide is not
considered of concern.
The EPA concluded, after reviewing Bekaert's processes, that no
other hazardous constituents of concern, other than those tested for,
are likely to be present or formed as reaction products or by-products
in Bekaert's waste proposed for exclusion. In addition, on the basis of
explanations and analytical data provided by Bekaert, pursuant to
Sec. 260.22, the EPA concludes that the waste does not exhibit any of
the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. See
Sec. 261.21, Sec. 261.22, and Sec. 261.23, respectively.
During the evaluation of Bekaert's petition, the EPA also
considered the potential impact of the petitioned waste via non-ground
water routes (i.e., air emission and surface runoff). With regard to
airborne dispersion in particular, the EPA believes that exposure to
airborne contaminants from Bekaert's petitioned waste is unlikely. The
EPA evaluated the potential hazards resulting from the unlikely
scenario of airborne exposure to hazardous constituents released from
Bekaert's waste in an open landfill. The results of this worst-case
analysis indicated that there is no substantial present or potential
hazard to human health from airborne exposure to constituents from
Bekaert's petitioned waste. A description of the EPA's assessment of
the potential impact of Bekaert's waste, with regard to airborne
dispersion of waste contaminants, is presented in the RCRA public
docket for today's proposed rule.
The EPA also considered the potential impact of the petitioned
waste via a surface water route. The EPA believes that containment
structures at municipal solid waste landfills can effectively control
surface water run-off. Subtitle D regulations (see 56 FR 50978, October
9, 1991) prohibit pollutant discharges into surface waters.
Furthermore, the concentrations of any hazardous constituents dissolved
in the runoff will tend to be lower than the levels in the TCLP
leachate analyses reported in today's notice, due to the aggressive
acid medium used for extraction in the TCLP test. The EPA believes
that, in general, leachate derived from the waste is unlikely to enter
a surface water body directly without first travelling through the
saturated subsurface zone where further dilution and attenuation of
hazardous constituents will also occur. Leachable concentrations
provide a direct measure of the solubility of a toxic constituent in
water, and are indicative of the fraction of the constituent that may
be mobilized in surface water, as well as ground water. The reported
TCLP extraction data shows that the metals that might be released from
Bekaert's waste to surface water would be likely to remain undissolved
or leach in concentrations that would be below health-based levels of
concern. Finally, any transported constituents would be further diluted
in the receiving surface water body.
Based on the reasons discussed above, the EPA believes that
contamination of surface water through run-off from the waste disposal
area is very unlikely. Nevertheless, the EPA evaluated potential
impacts on surface water if Bekaert's waste were released from a
municipal solid waste landfill through run-off and erosion. See, the
RCRA public docket for today's proposed rule. The estimated levels of
the hazardous constituents of concern in surface water would be well
below health-based levels for human health, as well as below the EPA
Chronic Water Quality Criteria for aquatic organisms (USEPA, OWRS,
1987). The EPA, therefore, concluded that Bekaert's petitioned waste is
not a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the
environment via the surface water exposure pathway.
E. Conclusion
The EPA has reviewed the sampling procedures used by Bekaert and
has determined that they satisfy the EPA criteria for collecting
representative samples. The data submitted in support of the petition
demonstrates, after careful evaluation, that constituents in Bekaert's
waste are present at the compliance point below the health-based levels
used in the delisting decision-making. The EPA believes that Bekaert
has successfully demonstrated that the petitioned waste is non-
hazardous.
The EPA, therefore, proposes to grant an exclusion to Bekaert Steel
Corporation, located in Rogers, Arkansas, for the petitioned waste
described in its petition as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006. The EPA's
decision to exclude this waste is based on descriptions of the process
from which the petitioned waste is derived, descriptions of Bekaert's
wastewater treatment process, and characterization of the petitioned
waste. If the proposed rule is finalized, the petitioned waste will no
longer be subject to regulation under Parts 262 through 268 and the
permitting standards of Part 270.
If made final, the proposed exclusion will apply only to 1,250
cubic yards of petitioned waste generated annually, on a calendar year
basis, through operation of Bekaert's wastewater treatment filter
press. The facility would be required to obtain a new exclusion if
either its manufacturing or treatment processes are significantly
altered such that an adverse change in waste composition (for example,
significantly higher levels of hazardous constituents) or increase in
volume occur. Accordingly, the facility would be required to file a new
petition for the altered waste. Additionally, the facility must treat
waste generated either in excess of 1,250 cubic yards per year or
generated from changed processes as hazardous until a new exclusion is
granted.
Although management of the waste covered by this petition would be
removed from Subtitle C jurisdiction upon final promulgation of an
exclusion, the generator of a delisted waste must either treat, store,
or dispose of the waste in an on-site facility, or ensure that the
waste is delivered to an off-site storage, treatment, or disposal
facility, either of which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a
State to manage municipal or industrial solid waste. Alternatively, the
delisted waste may be delivered to a facility that beneficially uses or
reuses, or legitimately recycles or reclaims the waste, or treats the
waste prior to such beneficial use, reuse, recycling, or reclamation.
F. Annual Testing
If a final exclusion is granted, the petitioner will be required to
demonstrate, on an annual basis, that the characteristics of the
petitioned waste remain as originally described. In order to confirm
that the characteristics of the waste do not change significantly, the
facility must, on an annual basis, analyze a representative composite
sample for the constituents listed in Sec. 261.24 as well as antimony,
copper, nickel and zinc using the method specified therein. Sampling
and analysis must be completed by July 1 of each year. Each year's
analytical results (including quality control information) must be
compiled, certified according to 260.22(i)(12), maintained on-site for
a minimum of five years, and made available for inspection upon request
by any employee or representative of EPA or the State of Arkansas.
Failure to maintain the required records on site will be considered by
EPA, at its discretion, sufficient basis to revoke the exclusion to the
extent directed by EPA.
[[Page 32752]]
The purpose of this testing requirement is to ensure that the
quality of the petitioned waste remains as originally described by the
petitioner. The Agency believes that the data obtained will assist EPA
or the State in determining whether the petitioner's manufacturing
processes have been significantly altered, or if the waste is more
variable than originally described by the petitioner. The Agency also
believes that the annual retesting of the petitioned waste is not
overly burdensome to the facility and notes that these data will assist
the facility in complying with Sec. 262.11(c) which requires generators
to determine whether their wastes are hazardous, as defined by the
Toxicity Characteristic (see 40 CFR 261.24).
III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion
This proposed exclusion, if promulgated, would be issued under the
Federal (RCRA) delisting program. States, however, are allowed to
impose their own, non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more
stringent than EPA's, pursuant to section 3009 of RCRA. These more
stringent requirements may include a provision which prohibits a
Federally-issued exclusion from taking effect in the State. Since a
petitioner's waste may be regulated under a dual system (both Federal
(RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) programs), petitioners are urged to contact
their State regulatory authorities to determine the current status of
their wastes under State law.
Furthermore, some States are authorized to administer a delisting
program in lieu of the Federal program, i.e., to make their own
delisting decisions. Therefore, this proposed exclusion, if
promulgated, would not apply in those authorized States. If the
petitioned waste will be transported to any State with delisting
authorization, Bekaert must obtain delisting authorization from that
State before the waste may be managed as nonhazardous in that State.
IV. Effective Date
This rule, if made final, will become effective immediately upon
final publication. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
amended Section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become effective in less
than six-months when the regulated community does not need the six-
month period to come into compliance. That is the case here, because
this rule, if finalized, would reduce the existing requirements for
persons generating hazardous wastes. In light of the unnecessary
hardship and expense that would be imposed on this petitioner by an
effective date six months after publication and the fact that a six-
month deadline is not necessary to achieve the purpose of Section 3010,
the EPA believes that this exclusion should be effective immediately
upon final publication. These reasons also provide a basis for making
this rule effective immediately, upon final publication, under the
Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.Sec. 553(d).
V. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12866, the EPA must conduct an ``assessment
of the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant''
regulatory actions. This proposal to grant an exclusion is not
significant, since its effect, if promulgated, would be to reduce the
overall costs and economic impact of the EPA's hazardous waste
management regulations. This reduction would be achieved by excluding
waste generated at a specific facility from the EPA's lists of
hazardous wastes, thereby enabling this facility to treat its waste as
non-hazardous. There is no additional impact due to today's rule.
Therefore, this proposal would not be a significant regulation, and no
cost/benefit assessment is required. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has also exempted this rule from the requirement for OMB
review under Section (6) of Executive Order 12866.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Secs. 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 the EPA's hazardous waste regulations and would be
limited to one facility. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this
proposed regulation, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
regulation, therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility
analysis.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated
with this proposed rule have been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980 (Pub. L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3501 et seq.) and have been
assigned OMB Control Number 2050-0053.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995,
the 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, the 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 the 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 the 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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 32753]]
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: June 11, 1996.
Jane N. Saginaw,
Regional Administrator.
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 Sec. 260.20 and
Sec. 260.22
Table 2.--Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Bekaert Steel Corporation....... Rogers, Arkansas................ Wastewater treatment sludge (EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F006) generated from
electroplating operations (at a maximum
annual rate of 1,250 cubic yards to be
measured on a calendar year basis) after
[insert publication date of the final
rule]. In order to confirm that the
characteristics of the waste do not change
significantly, the facility must, on an
annual basis, before July 1 of each year,
analyze a representative composite sample
for the constituents listed in 261.24 as
well as antimony, copper, nickel, and zinc
using the method specified therein. The
annual analytical results, including
quality control information, must be
compiled, certified according to Sec.
260.22(i)(12) of this chapter, maintained
on site for a minimum of five years, and
made available for inspection upon request
of any employee or representative of EPA or
the State of Arkansas. Failure to maintain
the required documents on site will be
considered by EPA, at its discretion,
sufficient basis to revoke the exclusion to
the extent directed by EPA.
Notification Requirements:
Bekaert Steel Corporation must provide a one-
time written notification to any State
Regulatory Agency to which or through which
the delisted waste described above will be
transported for disposal at least 60 days
prior to the commencement of such
activities. Failure to provide such a
notification will result in a violation of
the delisting petition and a possible
revocation of the decision.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-15884 Filed 6-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P