[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41005-41012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19885]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-5862-8]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Removal of Final Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing repeal
of the exclusion that appears in the final rule published at 56 FR
67197 (December 30, 1991) regarding a delisting granted to Reynolds
Metals Company (Reynolds), Gum Springs, Arkansas. The exclusion granted
to Reynolds on December 30, 1991, was to exclude (or delist), certain
solid wastes (i.e., kiln residue from treatment of spent potliner from
primary aluminum reduction) generated at Reynolds' facility from the
lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.24, 40 CFR 261.31, 40
CFR 261.32 and 40 CFR 261.33 (hereinafter all sectional references are
to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated). This proposed decision to repeal
the exclusion is based on an evaluation of waste-specific information
provided by Reynolds and obtained by EPA either independently or from
the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPC&E)
subsequent to the promulgation of the exclusion. If this proposed
decision is finalized, all future waste generated at Reynold's Gum
Springs, Arkansas facility will no longer be excluded from the
requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and must be handled as hazardous
waste in accordance with 40 CFR parts 260 through 266, 268 and 273 as
well as any permitting standards of 40 CFR part 270.
DATES: The EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision.
Comments will be accepted until September 2, 1997. Comments postmarked
after the close of the comment period will be stamped ``late'', and
will not be considered in formulating a final decision.
Any person may request a hearing on this proposed decision by
filing a request by August 15, 1997. The request must contain the
information prescribed in Sec. 260.20(d).
ADDRESSES: Send three copies of your comments. Two copies should be
sent to 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, Little Rock, Arkansas 72209-8913. Identify your comments at the
top with this regulatory docket number: F-97-ARDEL-REYNOLDS. Requests
for a hearing should also be addressed to William Gallagher.
The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule is located at
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 72209. 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 William Gallagher, Delisting Program (6PD-O),
Region 6, Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202, (214) 665-6775.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. ``Delisting'', in General
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 nonspecific and specific sources.
This list has been amended several times, and is published in
Secs. 261.31, 261.32 and 261.33. 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).
In 1988,1 the Agency determined that spent potliners are
a solid waste that may pose a substantial present or potential hazard
to human health or the environment when improperly transported,
treated, stored, disposed of, or otherwise managed. It was determined
that spent potliners contain toxic constituents that are mobile and/or
persistent in the environment. Spent potliners were originally listed
as hazardous waste because: (1) Spent potliners contain significant
amounts of iron cyanide complexes and free cyanide, both of which EPA
detected in spent potliners in significant concentrations; (2) free
cyanide is extremely toxic to both humans and aquatic life if ingested;
(3) available data indicated that significant amounts of free cyanide
and iron cyanide will leach from potliners if spent potliners are
stored or disposed in unprotected piles outdoors and are exposed to
rain water; (4) damage incidents have been reported that are
attributable to improper disposal of spent potliners, demonstrating
migration, mobility, and persistence of waste constituents and
demonstrating that substantial hazard can result from improper
management of this waste; and (5) generation of large quantities of the
waste increases the
[[Page 41006]]
potential for hazard if mismanagement should occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 53 FR 35412 (September 13, 1988)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Therefore, Secs. 260.20 and 260.22 provide a variance
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 EPA to consider any factors
(including additional constituents) other than those for which the
waste was listed, if there is a reasonable basis to believe that such
additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. Accordingly,
a petitioner also must demonstrate that the waste does not exhibit any
of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity, and toxicity), and must present sufficient information for
EPA to determine based on actual or theoretical data whether the waste
contains any of the other identified constituents at levels not
protective of human health and the environment through comparison to
maximum contaminant levels, drinking water standards, etc. See,
Sec. 260.22(a), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and the background documents for the
listed wastes. Although wastes that are delisted (i.e., excluded) are
evaluated to decide whether they exhibit any of the characteristics of
hazardous waste, generators remain obligated under RCRA to determine
whether their waste exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic as
defined by Secs. 261.21 through 261.24. The Agency may also impose
additional conditions to ensure the waste does not result in a health
hazard, and has the ability to consider and act on new information if
it becomes available.
In addition, mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes and
residues from the treatment, storage, or disposal of 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
but remain hazardous wastes until excluded.
B. The Reynold's ``Delisting'' Petition
On August 14, 1989, Reynolds Metals Company (Reynolds), located in
Bauxite, Arkansas, petitioned EPA pursuant to Secs. 260.20 and 260.22
to exclude kiln residue derived from processing K088 spent potliner
wastes at its R.P. Patterson facility in Gum Springs, Arkansas from
hazardous waste regulation. Reynolds conducted the demonstration for
the delisting at its Bauxite, Arkansas, facility but later moved its
thermal treatment process from Bauxite, Arkansas, to the Reynolds
facility located in Gum Springs, Arkansas. Specifically, Reynolds
requested an exclusion (i.e., for a waste that had not yet been
generated) for kiln residue from the treatment of spent potliner from
four Reynolds aluminum reduction facilities. Reynolds petitioned EPA
for the exclusion based on: (1) descriptions of a full-scale process
used to treat spent potliner; and (2) characterization of untreated
spent potliner and residue generated at Reynolds' Bauxite, Arkansas,
facility during the treatment of spent potliners from four Reynolds
aluminum reduction facilities. In support of its petition, Reynolds
submitted: (1) Detailed descriptions of its waste treatment process;
(2) a description of the processes generating spent potliners that were
treated by the rotary kiln process; (3) total constituent analysis
results for the eight metals listed in Sec. 261.24; (4) total
constituent analysis results for antimony, beryllium, nickel, cyanide,
and fluoride from representative samples of both the kiln residue and
the untreated spent potliner; (5) Extraction Procedure 2
leachate analysis results for the eight metals listed in Sec. 261.24,
antimony, beryllium, nickel, cyanide, and fluoride from representative
samples of the kiln residue; (6) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure, test Method 1311 in ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA Publication SW-846 (hereinafter
the TCLP) 3 leachate analyses for the metals in Sec. 261.24
(except mercury), antimony, beryllium, nickel, cyanide, and fluoride
from representative samples of the kiln residue; (7) total constituent
analysis results for volatile and semivolatile organic compounds,
dioxins, and furans from representative samples of the kiln residue;
and (8) test results and information regarding the hazardous waste
characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Extraction Procedure was the accepted leachate test in
1989 when Reynolds originally submitted its petition.
\3\ The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure replaced the
Extraction Procedure as the standard leaching procedure for
hazardous waste in 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, Reynolds requested that the exclusion also apply to the
waste generated by an additional kiln in order for Reynolds to expand
its treatment capacity. The second kiln was established in conjunction
with the first kiln in Gum Springs, Arkansas, and similarly treats
spent potliner.
C. EPA Evaluation of Reynolds ``Delisting'' Petition
The EPA evaluated the information and analytical data provided by
Reynolds in support of its petition. Specifically, EPA evaluated the
petitioned waste (i.e., the treatment residues) against the listing
criteria for K088 listed waste and factors cited in Sec. 261.11(a)(3).
Based on that review, EPA determined that the waste was nonhazardous
with respect to the original listing criteria (i.e., presence of
cyanide in the residue). The EPA then evaluated the waste with respect
to other factors or criteria to assess whether there was a reasonable
basis to believe that additional factors could cause the waste to be
hazardous. In accordance with Sec. 260.22, EPA was required to consider
whether the waste was acutely toxic, 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. As
explained in the final rule delisting the waste, EPA assumed that
disposal in a subtitle D landfill was the most reasonable, worst-case
disposal scenario for Reynolds' petitioned waste. This assumption is
based in part on Reynolds' original delisting petition that stated that
the waste would be disposed of in an on-site monofill or in a municipal
landfill. The EPA determined the major exposure route of concern would
be ingestion of contaminated ground water. Evaluations of wind blown
dust and surface water runoff were conducted and determined not to be a
concern. The EPA Composite Model for Landfills (EPACML) was used 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
[[Page 41007]]
disposal of Reynolds' petitioned waste on human health and the
environment. At the time of the Reynolds petition submittal, the Agency
had developed a ground water model which could address a large number
of limitations in the ground water models used in 1989. See, 56 FR
32993, July 18, 1991 and 56 FR 67197, December 30, 1991. Specifically,
EPA used the maximum estimated waste volume and the maximum reported
TCLP 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 health-based levels (i.e, Maximum
Contaminant levels, drinking water standards, etc.) used in delisting
decision-making for the hazardous constituents of concern.
The EPA believed that this fate and transport model represented a
reasonable worst-case scenario for disposal of the petitioned waste in
a landfill, and that a reasonable worst-case scenario was appropriate
when evaluating whether a waste should be relieved of the protective
management constraints of RCRA subtitle C. The delisting process was
established on the basis that if it could be demonstrated that the
waste concentrations would not exceed the health based concentrations
at a hypothetical downgradient well, when modeled using the assumed
worst-case scenario, the waste could be delisted. Based on this
evaluation, EPA believed that the hazardous constituents in Reynolds'
petitioned waste would not leach and migrate at concentrations above
the health-based levels used in delisting decision-making and,
therefore, would not pose a threat to human health and the environment.
Accordingly, after providing the required public notice and opportunity
to comment EPA concluded that: (1) The waste to be excluded was not
hazardous based upon the criteria for which K088 was listed, and (2) no
other hazardous constituents or factors that could cause the waste to
be hazardous were present in the waste at levels of regulatory concern.
For complete information on EPA's proposed and final decisions to grant
Reynold's delisting petition see 56 FR 32993 (July 18, 1991) and 56 FR
67197 (December 30, 1991) respectively.
As part of the decision to grant the Reynolds delisting petition,
EPA imposed requirements that Reynolds conduct ongoing sampling of the
treatment residue using the TCLP to verify that the hazardous
constituents remaining in the residue were below the established
delisting levels for those constituents. No requirements were
established for sampling the monofill residue leachate.
D. Reynolds' Current Disposal of the Delisted Treatment Residue
Reynolds presently uses its process to treat its own spent potliner
K088 wastes and those from other sources, and has disposed
approximately 300,000 cubic yards of the residue in a single lined
monofill located at the Gum Springs site. According to Reynolds, from
June 1994 to March 1996, the leachate generated from the landfill
(approximately 7,000,000 gallons of leachate) was shipped off-site to a
Reynolds facility located in Sherwin, Texas, for use as a water
conditioner (a practice now no longer employed by Reynolds). Since
April 1996, the company also has used approximately 150,000 cubic yards
of the delisted residues in mine reclamation activities at its
Hurricane Creek, Arkansas, mining site as fill material in unlined
pits, and as test material for all-weather road surfaces at the mining
site and at the Gum Springs Plant.
As required by the delisting conditions, Reynolds has conducted
ongoing daily sampling (TCLP) of the treatment residue generated by its
treatment of spent potliner K088 waste to determine if the hazardous
constituents remaining in the residue are below the established
delisting levels. See Part 261 Appendix IX-Table 2, Reynolds Metals
Company, Condition (2)(B). According to Reynolds' test results, the
leachate generated from using the test method prescribed by Reynolds'
exclusion (the TCLP) do not indicate that the health-based delisting
levels established for the constituents of concern in the residue have
been exceeded. (See Table 1).
Table 1.-- TCLP Leachate Data for Residues (Milligrams Per Liter, mg/
L)\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCLP results from ongoing verification testing
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic (mg/ Cyanide \2\ Fluoride
Date of report L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delisting Limit............... 0.6 2.4 48
Health Based Level............ \3\0.05 \4\0.2 \4\4
4/6/94........................ <0.002 <0.5 28.8
5/10/94....................... 0.002 0.733 26.6
3/22/95....................... <0.005 1.28 32.4
9/28/95....................... 0.008 2.00 27.0
1/14/96....................... 0.010 1.22 32.0
4/2/96........................ <0.002 1.90 31.1
9/26/96....................... 0.015 1.70 25.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Representative sample of data collected from daily analyses for
Reynolds Metals Company's Laboratory Reports for the Kiln Product.
\2\ Deionized water leachate used in lieu of TCLP extraction media.
\3\ Maximum Contaminant Level.
\4\ National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards.
II. Repeal of Final Rule Granting Reynolds' Delisting Petition
A. Highly Alkaline Nature of Reynolds' Treatment Residue
Subsequent to issuing the final rule granting Reynolds' delisting
petition, EPA has obtained additional information gathered after the
operations at the Gum Springs facility began. Specifically, EPA now has
received and analyzed data regarding the makeup of the actual residue
leachate generated by Reynolds' K088 treatment process and data from
the Hurricane Creek mining site. As explained in greater detail below,
those data indicate that the monofill leachate contains levels of
hazardous constituents significantly higher than the health-based
delisting levels. Those data also show that the leachate is
[[Page 41008]]
hazardous waste as defined by Sec. 261.22. The leachate is corrosive
with a pH in the range of 12.5-13.5. In light of those actual field
data, EPA has now initially concluded that the Agency's 1991
determination under Sec. 260.22, that no other hazardous constituents
or factors that could cause the K088 treatment residue resulting from
Reynolds' treatment process to be hazardous are present in the waste at
levels of regulatory concern, needs to be revised.
Specifically, EPA now preliminarily concludes that the highly
alkaline nature of the treatment residue is a factor which warrants
retaining it as a hazardous waste. As supported by the data recently
gathered by EPA and the State of Arkansas and discussed below, the
mobility of the arsenic, cyanide, and fluoride remaining in the
treatment residue increases in the highly alkaline matrix. This results
in these compounds leaching from the residue at hazardous levels under
most disposal scenarios, including those utilized by Reynolds. In
addition, the leachate is a hazardous waste because it exhibits the
hazardous waste characteristic of corrosivity. Therefore, based on this
new data, the treatment residue should not remain delisted.
The EPA believes that the highly alkaline nature of the Reynolds
treatment residue is due to the high pH of each of the materials being
combined in the treatment process (i.e., spent potliner, brown sand,
and limestone). Spent potliner alone has been found to raise the pH of
deionized water from 7 to 12.0.4 Historically, the pH of
spent potliner has ranged from 11-13 when measured. Brown sand is an
alkaline mud produced from the extraction of alumina from bauxite ore
with sodium hydroxide, and contains significant concentrations of
highly caustic sodium hydroxide residuals. Its pH has been measured at
ranges from 12-14. Limestone (pH 9-10) is a caustic material whose
intended use in the process is to react with soluble fluoride salts in
spent potliner to form stable, relatively insoluble, calcium fluoride.
However, the high alkalinity of brown sand together with spent potliner
and limestone provides no neutralization of the inherent alkalinity of
the residue; in confirmation, the pH of deionized water leach solutions
(for cyanide extraction) of the Reynolds' treatment residue has been
found to range from 11.9 to 12.2.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Attachments to December 9, 1996, letter from Pat Grover of
Reynolds Metals Company to Michael Shapiro, Director, Office of
Solid Waste. Results cited are from the analysis of 100 grams of
solid material leached with 2-liters of deionized water (1:20
ratio).
\5\ Id. at Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As EPA noted in the Emergency Rule for the K088 national capacity
variance (See, 62 FR 1993, January 14, 1997) cyanide (for example,
alkali-metallic cyanide complexes) is soluble, and even insoluble iron
cyanides can be solubilized under highly alkaline conditions. While the
total cyanide concentration in the treated waste has been reduced by
Reynolds' treatment process, cyanide remaining in the residue is
environmentally mobile and appears in high concentrations in the
alkaline leachate from the Gum Springs landfill. As a result, almost
all forms of remaining cyanide (free cyanide and cyanide complexes) are
detected in the Gum Springs leachate. However, at a neutral pH, only
the soluble free cyanide would be expected in the leachate. Moreover,
although, the final exclusion did not express concerns with the
presence of arsenic in the treatment residue, high concentrations of
arsenic are present in the residue leachate sampled from the monofill.
It is believed that the high degree of arsenic in the leachate is also
due to the highly alkaline nature of the treatment residue. Arsenic in
the treated spent potliner will be predominantly in the III oxidation
state because of the high operating temperature of the rotary kilns.
Arsenic probably would normally remain in the III oxidation state,
whether in the solid phase or in leachate, however, arsenic III
solubility and mobility tend to increase under highly alkaline
conditions.
B. EPA Analysis of Data
The EPA has completed an analysis of data gathered from Reynolds,
the ADPC&E and its independent sampling of the residue. Those data
consist of leachate samples from Reynolds' monofill and from the
Reynolds Hurricane Creek mining site. Those data support the Agency's
preliminary conclusion that Reynolds' treatment residue should not
remain delisted. For example, the Reynolds and ADPC&E sampling data
from the residue leachate from the dedicated monofill show that the
leachate contains concentrations of hazardous constituents above the
delisting limits, (See Table 2).
Table 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residue leachate data from monofill \1\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic (mg/ Cyanide (mg/ Fluoride
Date pH L) L) (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delisting Limits........................................ ............ 0.6 2.4 48
Health-Based Level...................................... ............ \2\ 0.05 \3\ 0.2 \3\ 4
4/6/94.................................................. 13.5 ............ 18.8 5.2
5/11/94................................................. ............ 3.54 ............ ............
3/22/95................................................. ............ 12.8 22 ............
9/28/95................................................. 13.1 10.6 35.3 2650
1/5/96.................................................. 12.5 7.0 ............ ............
4/2/96.................................................. 12.9 11.5 41.4 2320
9/26/96................................................. 12.75 6.55 46.5 2228
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These samples were collected during Reynolds' semi-annual landfill sampling events and an ADPC&E inspection.
\2\ Maximum Contaminant Level.
\3\ National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards.
Data from samples of the actual leachate from the monofill taken in
September 1996, shows total cyanide concentrations in the actual
leachate are 46.5 mg/L (the maximum cyanide concentration allowable
under the Reynolds' exclusion is 2.4 mg/L); arsenic concentrations are
at 6.55 mg/L (Reynolds' delisting maximum concentration is 0.6 mg/L);
and fluoride concentrations are at 2228 mg/L (Reynolds' delisting
maximum concentration is 48 mg/L). The residue leachate concentrations
from the monofill are orders of magnitude higher
[[Page 41009]]
than the average predicted TCLP leachate values, (See Table 3).
Table 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of leachate concentrations from monofill and TCLP concentrations (mg/L)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constituent DL \1\ HBL \1\ (A) (B) (A)(B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monofill Average TCLP (4/ Leachate-
Leachate (4/94- 94-9/96). TCLP=Comparativ
9/96). e Strength of
Monofill
Leachate.
Arsenic....................... 0.6 \2\ 0.05 3.54--12.8...... 0.006........... 590--2133
Cyanide....................... 2.4 \3\0.2 18.8--46.5...... 1.30............ 14.46--35.77
Fluoride...................... 48 \3\ 4 5.2--2650....... 29.06........... .179--91.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DL=Delisting Limit in mg/L; HBL = Health Based Level in mg/L.
\2\ Maximum Contaminant Level.
\3\ National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards.
Further, the Gum Springs monofill leachate also has a pH of 12.5 to
13.5, exceeding the pH level of 12.5 identifying a waste as hazardous
due to the characteristic of corrosivity. See Sec. 261.22. The leachate
from the residue is a hazardous waste.
An analysis of surface water run off from treated spent potliner
used as test roadbeds at the Hurricane Creek Mine by ADPC&E in
September 1996 found concentrations of the following hazardous
constituents of concern: total cyanide concentrations of 2.0 mg/L
(compared with a health-based level of 0.2 mg/L) 6; arsenic
concentrations at 1.24 mg/L (compared with the health-based level of
0.05 mg/L) 7; and fluoride concentrations at 229 mg/L
(compared with the health-based level of 4.0 mg/L) 8,(See,
sampling results provided by ADPC&E included in the docket, items F-97-
ARDEL-REYNOLDS-002). In addition, EPA performed sampling at the
Hurricane Creek mine reclamation site in March 1997. Results from the
sampling of the residue used as fill material indicate TCLP leachable
concentrations of fluoride in the residue used as fill material at the
mine site ranged from 17.0 mg/L--86.4 mg/L (compared to the health-
based level of 4.0 mg/L).9 The cyanide concentrations in the
residue used as fill material ranged from 0.01 mg/L--0.79 mg/L.
(compared to the health-based number of 0.2 mg/L).10 Water
samples taken from boreholes placed in the mine reclamation area show
arsenic concentrations at 19.8 mg/L (compared to the health-based level
of 0.05 mg/L), cyanide concentrations at 3.3 mg/L (compared to the
health-based level of 0.2 mg/L) and fluoride concentrations at 2320 mg/
L (compared to the health-based level of 4.0 mg/L). This indicates that
when placed in an acidic environment, the waste continues to leach at
levels which would not be protective of human health and the
environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 56 FR 33006.
\7\ Id.
\8\ Id.
\9\ Id.
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Values for pH, arsenic, fluoride, and cyanide differ significantly
between the TCLP extract for treated spent potliner and the actual
residue leachate from the monofill. EPA assumed that the TCLP would
accurately predict the leachate quality of the treated spent potliner
when evaluating Reynolds' petition in 1991 and used the maximum TCLP
leachate concentrations and the EPACML model to evaluate the compliance
point concentrations for the waste. The EPACML projected that no
hazardous constituents would migrate from the landfill at
concentrations that would exceed the health-based levels at a receptor
well.
Based on the actual data when using the TCLP the delisted material
has always met the delisting criteria as prescribed in the December
1991 exclusion or the residue has been further treated when a batch
failed to meet the delisting criteria. The predicted leachate
characteristics (via TCLP), however, do not correlate to the actual
leachate concentrations, (See, Table 4).
Table 4.--Leachate Concentrations (mg/L) TCLP vs. Actual Leachate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leachate analyses
-----------------------------------
Inorganic constituents TCLP (1991
petition) Landfill (1994-1996)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic............................. 0.018 3.54-12.8
Cyanide............................. 0.014 18.8-46.5
Fluoride............................ 29.0 5.2-2650
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this limited circumstance, the TCLP was not an accurate
predictor for the actual leachability of the treated residue. This is a
distinct and unusual case. The Agency anticipated that certain
situations might arise, as stated in the Response to Comments on the
promulgation of revisions to the TCLP method. See, 55 FR 11798 (March
29, 1990).
The EPA is continuing to investigate the reasons for the
discrepancies between the predicted and actual results, but the initial
findings indicate a possible explanation. The EPA suspects that the
highly alkaline residue does not leach under the TCLP test conditions
because the solubility and mobility of arsenic, cyanide, and fluoride
remaining in the residue do not occur at the extraction conditions of
the test (liquid to solid ratio). The liquid to solid ratio for the
TCLP test is 20:1 (2 liters of extraction fluid/100 grams of residue).
The liquid to solid ratios of the monofill range 0.15:1--0.09:1 based
on rainfall amounts and in situ waste volume. See, F-97-ARDEL-REYNOLDS-
010. The difference in the TCLP liquid to solid ratio and the actual
monofill liquid to solid ratio contributes to the differing results.
The TCLP appears to be diluting the concentrations of the constituents
leaching from the residue.
When the measured leachate concentrations are input into the EPACML
model, the residue fails to meet the delisting criteria for arsenic,
cyanide, and fluoride, (See, Table 5). The concentrations of
constituents in the actual landfill leachate can pose a threat to human
health and the environment. Further, the leachate exhibits the
characteristic of corrosivity.
[[Page 41010]]
Table 5.--EPACML: Calculated Compliance-Point Concentrations (mg/L) TCLP
/Actual Landfill Leachate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance point Health
concentrations \1\ (mg/L) based
Inorganic constituents ----------------------------- levels \2\
TCLP Landfill (mg/L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic........................ 0.0026 0.295-1.07 \3\ 0.05
Cyanide........................ 0.021 1.57-4.291 \4\ 0.2
Fluoride....................... 2.42 0.433-221 \4\ 4.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Compliance Point Concentrations are calculated using the TCLP
leachate concentration divided by a dilution attenuation factor (DAF)
of 12. The DAF corresponds to the maximum volume of 300,000 cubic
yards of residue generated Reynolds annually).
\2\ See, 56 FR 33006, December 30, 1991 located in the RCRA public
docket for today's document.
\3\ Maximum Contaminant Level.
\4\ National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards.
The EPA believes that this is an anomalous case because of the
unique characteristics of Reynolds' waste (i.e., very caustic) and
treatment process. The EPA's reasoning in evaluating the difference
between predicted using the TCLP and actual landfill leachate results
and findings relating to the mine reclamation site are expressly
limited to this isolated waste, treatment process, and circumstance. It
is to be anticipated that no test methodology will be universally
appropriate in all circumstances and will be varied based upon discrete
site-specific conditions as was anticipated by the rule promulgating
revisions to the TCLP referenced above. It is for just such reasons
that the Agency did not so limit the appropriate test method for making
all delisting decisions. The EPA finds that there are distinct
differences in the assumptions made in use of the TCLP and the actual
monofill conditions as well as most other potential disposal scenarios.
For example, Reynolds' waste is not co-disposed with 95 per cent
municipal waste as assumed by the TCLP worst case scenario. The
leaching of Reynolds' waste by rain water (with little buffer capacity)
occurs in lieu of the simulated municipal landfill leachate (where the
leaching media is designed with a certain buffer capacity). Finally,
highly alkaline conditions (pH 12.5-13.5) exist in the monofill as
opposed to the low pH (<5) conditions normally anticipated in municipal
landfills.
C. Conclusion
Based on the information described above, EPA believes that
Reynolds' residue from the treatment of K088 spent potliner from the
list of hazardous waste contained in Sec. 261.32 should not remain
delisted. Based on more than two years of sampling data from the actual
treatment residue leachate and data gathered during EPA's sampling
event in March 1997, EPA believes that the residue does not meet the
Sec. 260.22 criteria for delisting. Therefore, EPA proposes to repeal
the final rule published at 56 FR 67197 (July 18, 1991) granting
Reynolds' petition for an exclusion from K088 hazardous waste listing
contained in Secs. 261.31 and 261.32 for certain solid waste generated
at Reynolds Metals Company, Gum Springs, Arkansas.
The leachate from the kiln residue contains cyanide concentrations
which greatly exceed the health-based limit of 0.2 mg/L. Cyanide is
extremely toxic when it is ingested in free form and less toxic when
ingested in complex form. In its most toxic form, cyanide can be fatal
to humans at a concentration of 300 parts per million. Cyanide affects
human tissues ability to use oxygen. Some health effects from low level
cyanide exposures are breathing difficulties, headaches, skin
irritation and in some cases sores. Moreover, the concentrations of
arsenic, a human carcinogen, far exceed the maximum contaminant level
of 0.05 mg/L. The concentrations of fluoride at the compliance point
are well above the drinking water standard of 4 mg/L. Fluoride
concentrations as low as 4 mg/L have been determined to mottle teeth.
The resultant leachate from the kiln residue is a characteristic
hazardous waste (corrosive). The premise on which the delisting was
based, that the TCLP test would be an appropriate test to model the
fate and transport of hazardous constituents in this waste is not
supported by the actual leachate data. The inherent waste-like
qualities of the kiln residue (i.e., the high pH and the potential for
the leachate contacting the residual to solubilize and increase the
mobility of toxic constituents) also support repeal of the rule which
delisted the treated kiln residue. The kiln residue's potential to
cause damage to human health and the environment, especially under its
current management practices, provides yet another reason for
reestablishing regulatory control over the kiln residue. Based on the
leachate data provided, information from the treatment process, and
evaluation of the additional uses of the residue employed by Reynolds,
EPA concludes that the rule delisting the kiln residue should be
repealed.
It is EPA's understanding that Reynolds is currently making several
treatment process modifications to address the leachate issues
surrounding the treated kiln residue. If the repeal of the final rule
becomes effective, Reynolds may submit to the Agency a new delisting
petition for the wastes generated from the modified treatment process.
D. Interim Status for Reynolds' Monofill
Because of the delisting granted to Reynolds' treatment residue
generated at its Gum Springs facility, Reynolds can presently dispose
of the treatment residue in its single lined on-site monofill without
obtaining Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle C
interim status or an RCRA subtitle C permit. However, if EPA finalizes
this proposed repeal of the Reynolds' delisting, Reynolds must manage
the treatment residue as a hazardous waste and must dispose of the
waste in either a unit permitted under subtitle C of RCRA or a unit
which meets interim status standards under subtitle C of RCRA and all
applicable state regulations.
Under RCRA Section 3005(e), any person who owns or operates a
facility required to have a permit under subtitle C and which ``is in
existence on the effective date of statutory or regulatory changes
under [subtitle C] that render the facility subject to the requirement
to have a permit under Section 3005'', may qualify for interim status,
provided the requirements of Section 3005 are met. It is EPA's
understanding that Reynolds has begun a lateral expansion of its
landfill, which should meet the subtitle C minimum technological
requirements (MTR), for disposal of future wastes. In EPA's view, the
repeal represents a ``regulatory change'' that may render Reynolds''
upgraded monofill subject to the requirements of subtitle C, if the
[[Page 41011]]
repeal of Reynolds' delisting is finalized. If Reynolds' new MTR
landfill is in existence at the time of the regulatory change, EPA
expects that the new MTR landfill may be eligible for interim status
under RCRA Section 3005(e) provided that Reynolds complies with the
interim status standards contained in Sec. 265.1, et seq. and meets
applicable State regulations.
E. Best Demonstrated Available Technology
The EPA also notes that Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) treatment
standards for spent potliners expressed as numerical concentrations
limits were established in 61 FR 15584 (April 8, 1996). There is no
inherent conflict between a finding that a waste has been treated to
satisfy LDR requirements and a finding that the treatment residue
nevertheless remains a hazardous waste. This in fact is the normal case
(few residues from treating listed wastes have been delisted even after
being treated to satisfy LDR requirements), and is directly
contemplated in RCRA Section 3004 (m)(2).
III. Effective Date
This rule, if made final, will become effective 60 days from final
publication. The HSWA 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.
The EPA believes that 60 days will be sufficient for Reynolds to come
into compliance with today's rule. The 60 days will allow Reynolds to
either make arrangements to send its hazardous waste treatment residue
to a disposal facility permitted under subtitle C of RCRA or to seek
interim status for its on-site disposal facility (see interim status
discussion above).
IV. Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and to the requirements of the Executive Order (EO), which
include assessing the costs and benefits anticipated as a result of the
proposed regulatory action. The Order defines ``significant regulatory
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2)
create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action
taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal
or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in the EO.
The EPA has determined that today's final rule is a not a
significant rule under EO 12866 because it is a site-specific rule that
directly affects only the waste treatment residue from the Reynolds'
Gum Springs, Arkansas, facility.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 requires Federal
agencies to consider ``small entities'' throughout the regulatory
process. Section 603 of the RFA requires an initial screening analysis
to be performed to determine whether small entities will be adversely
affected by the regulation. If affected small entities are identified,
regulatory alternatives must be considered to mitigate the potential
impacts. Small entities as described in the Act are only those
``businesses, organizations and governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.''
Today's rule, if promulgated, will directly affect only the
Reynolds Metals Company, therefore, no small entities will be adversely
affected. The EPA certifies pursuant to the provisions at 5 U.S.C.
605(b), that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
authorizes the Director of the OMB to review certain information
collection requests by Federal agencies. The EPA has determined that
this proposed rule will not impose any new record keeping or reporting
requirements that would require OMB approval under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
VII. Unfunded Mandate Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub
.L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, Tribal, and local
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. When a written statement is needed for an EPA rule, section
205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, giving
them meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising them on compliance with the
regulatory requirements. The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate
for regulatory purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon
state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
The EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. Because today's proposed rule directly
affects only the Reynolds Gum Springs, Arkansas, facility, EPA finds
that the rule does not impose any enforceable duty upon State, local,
and tribal governments. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 203 and 205 of the UMRA.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental Protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 16, 1997.
Robert E. Hannesschlager,
Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
[[Page 41012]]
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.
Appendix IX to Part 261--[Amended]
2. In Appendix IX to part 261, table 2 is amended by removing the
entry ``Reynolds Metals Company'', Gum Springs, Arkansas''.
[FR Doc. 97-19885 Filed 7-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P