[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-4990]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 4, 1994]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261

[SW-FRL-4844-5]

 

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 or Agency) is 
proposing to grant a petition submitted by Bethlehem Steel Corporation 
(BSC), Sparrows Point, Maryland, to exclude certain solid wastes 
generated at its facility from the lists of hazardous wastes contained 
in Sec. 261.31 and Sec. 261.32. This action responds to a delisting 
petition submitted under Sec. 260.20, which allows any person to 
petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of Parts 
260 through 265 and 268 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
and under Sec. 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. The 
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 
regulation as a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA).
    The Agency is also proposing the use of a fate and transport model 
to evaluate the potential impact of the petitioned waste on human 
health and the environment, based on the waste-specific information 
provided by the petitioner. This model has been used in evaluating the 
petition to predict the concentration of hazardous constituents that 
may be released from the petitioned waste, once it is disposed of.

DATES: EPA is requesting public comments on today's proposed decision 
and on the applicability of the fate and transport model used to 
evaluate the petition. Comments will be accepted until April 18, 1994. 
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 the Director, Characterization and Assessment 
Division, Office of Solid Waste, whose address appears below, by March 
21, 1994. The request must contain the information prescribed in 
Sec. 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Send three copies of your comments to EPA. Two copies should 
be sent to the Docket Clerk, Office of Solid Waste (5305), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20460. A third copy should be sent to Jim Kent, Delisting Section, 
Waste Identification Branch, CAD/OSW (5304), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. Identify 
your comments at the top with this regulatory docket number: ``F-94-
B8EP-FFFFF''.
    Requests for a hearing should be addressed to the Director, 
Characterization and Assessment Division, Office of Solid Waste (5304), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, 
DC. 20460.
    The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule is located at the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20460, and is available for viewing (Room M2616) from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (202) 260-9327 
for appointments. 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 general information, contact the 
RCRA Hotline, toll free at (800) 424-9346, or at (703) 412-9810. For 
technical information concerning this notice, contact Shen-yi Yang, 
Office of Solid Waste (5304), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 
M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-1436.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Authority

    On January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim final 
regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA, EPA published an amended 
list of hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific sources. This 
list has been amended several times, and is published in 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 Secs. 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3).
    Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw 
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste 
that is described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a 
specific waste from an individual facility meeting the listing 
description may not be. For this reason, 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 other toxicants 
at hazardous levels. See Sec. 260.22(a), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and the 
background documents for the listed wastes. Although wastes which are 
``delisted'' (i.e., excluded) have been evaluated to determine whether 
or not they exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous waste, 
generators remain obligated under RCRA to determine whether or not 
their waste remains 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 
(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). The Agency plans to address issues related to waste mixtures and 
residues in a future rulemaking.

B. Approach Used To Evaluate This Petition

    This petition requests a delisting for a listed hazardous waste. In 
making the initial delisting determination, the Agency evaluated the 
petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in 
Secs. 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, the Agency agreed 
with the petitioner that the waste is non-hazardous with respect to the 
original listing criteria. (If the Agency had found, based on this 
review, that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for 
which the waste was originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny 
the petition.) 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 Agency 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 Agency used such information 
to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground water, surface 
water, air) for hazardous constituents present in the petitioned waste. 
The Agency determined that disposal in a landfill is the most 
reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for BSC's petitioned waste, 
and that the major exposure route of concern would be ingestion of 
contaminated ground water. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to use 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 in a regulated municipal solid waste 
landfill and to determine the potential impact of disposal of BSC's 
waste on human health and the environment. Specifically, the Agency 
used the maximum estimated waste volume and the maximum reported 
leachate 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 used in delisting 
decision-making for the hazardous constituents of concern.
    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 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 Agency is generally unable to predict and 
does not control how a waste will be managed after delisting. 
Therefore, EPA currently believes that it is inappropriate to consider 
extensive site-specific factors when applying the fate and transport 
model. For example, a generator may petition the Agency for delisting 
of a metal hydroxide sludge which is currently being managed in an on-
site landfill and provide data on the nearest drinking water well, 
permeability of the aquifer, dispersivities, etc. If the Agency were to 
base its evaluation solely on these site-specific factors, the Agency 
might conclude that the waste, at that specific location, cannot affect 
the closest well, and the Agency might grant the petition. Upon 
promulgation of the exclusion, however, the generator is under no 
obligation to continue to manage the waste at the on-site landfill. In 
fact, it is likely that the generator will either choose to send the 
delisted waste off-site immediately, or will eventually reach the 
capacity of the on-site facility and subsequently send the waste off 
site to a facility which may have very different hydrogeological and 
exposure conditions.
    The Agency also considers the applicability of ground-water 
monitoring data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this 
case, the Agency determined that, because BSC is seeking an upfront 
delisting (i.e., an exclusion based on data from waste generated from a 
bench-scale treatment process), ground-water monitoring data collected 
from the areas where the petitioner plans to dispose of the waste in 
the future are not necessary. Because the petitioned waste is not 
currently generated or disposed of, ground-water monitoring data would 
not characterize the effects of the petitioned waste on the underlying 
aquifer at the disposal sites and, thus, would serve no purpose. 
Therefore, the Agency did not request ground-water monitoring data.
    BSC petitioned the Agency for an upfront exclusion (for waste that 
has not yet been generated) based on descriptions of the proposed 
stabilization process that will be used to treat BSC's dewatered filter 
cake, characterization of dewatered (unstabilized) filter cake, and 
results from the analysis of waste subjected to BSC's proposed 
stabilization process.
    Similar to other facilities seeking upfront exclusions, this 
upfront exclusion (i.e., an exclusion based on information 
characterizing the process and waste) would be contingent upon the 
analytical testing of the petitioned waste once stabilization is 
initiated at BSC's Sparrows Point facility. Specifically, BSC will be 
required to collect representative samples of stabilized filter cake to 
verify that the stabilization process is on-line and operating as 
described in the petition. The verification testing requires BSC to 
demonstrate that the proposed stabilization process, once on-line, will 
generate a non-hazardous waste (i.e., a waste that meets the Agency's 
verification testing conditions).
    From the evaluation of BSC's delisting petition, a list of 
constituents was developed for the verification testing conditions. 
Tentative maximum allowable leachable concentrations for these 
constituents were derived by back calculating from the delisting 
health-based levels through the proposed fate and transport model for a 
landfill management scenario. These concentrations (i.e., ``delisting 
levels'') are the proposed verification testing conditions of the 
exclusion.
    The Agency encourages the use of upfront delisting petitions 
because they have the advantage of allowing the applicant to know what 
treatment levels for constituents will be sufficient to render specific 
wastes non-hazardous, before investing in new or modified waste 
treatment systems. Therefore, upfront delistings will allow new 
facilities to receive exclusions prior to generating wastes, which, 
without upfront exclusions, would unnecessarily have been considered 
hazardous. Upfront delistings for existing facilities can be processed 
concurrently during construction or permitting activities; therefore, 
new or modified treatment systems should be capable of producing wastes 
that are considered non-hazardous, and managed as such sooner than 
otherwise would be possible. At the same time, conditional testing 
requirements to verify that the delisting levels are achieved by the 
fully operational treatment systems will maintain the integrity of the 
delisting program and will ensure that only non-hazardous wastes are 
removed from Subtitle C control.
    Finally, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 
specifically require the Agency 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 public comments (including those at 
public hearings, if any) on today's proposal are addressed.

II. Disposition of Delisting Petition

    Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Sparrows Point, Maryland.

A. Petition for Exclusion

    Bethlehem Steel Corporation (BSC), located in Sparrows Point, 
Maryland, is involved in the production of tin and chromium plated 
parts and steel strip. BSC petitioned the Agency to exclude its 
chemically stabilized 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; (4) aluminum or 
zinc-aluminum plating 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 waste are cadmium, hexavalent 
chromium, nickel, and cyanide (complexed) (see part 261, appendix VII).
    BSC petitioned the Agency to exclude its stabilized filter cake 
because it does not believe that the waste, once generated, will meet 
the criteria of the listing. BSC claims that its treatment process will 
generate a non-hazardous waste because the constituents of concern in 
the waste are either not present or are in an essentially immobile 
form. BSC also believes that the waste will not contain any other 
constituents that would render the waste 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. 
6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)-(4). Today's proposal to grant this 
petition for delisting is the result of the Agency's evaluation of 
BSC's petition.

B. Background

    On January 2, 1991, BSC petitioned the Agency to exclude its 
stabilized filter cake from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 
Sec. 261.31 and Sec. 261.32, and subsequently provided additional 
information to complete its petition. Specifically, BSC requested that 
the Agency grant an upfront exclusion (i.e., an exclusion that applies 
to waste not presently generated) for dewatered filter cake that will 
be stabilized using lime kiln dust and powerplant fly ash at its 
Sparrows Point facility.
    In support of its petition, BSC submitted: (1) Detailed 
descriptions of its manufacturing, waste treatment, and stabilization 
processes, including schematic diagrams; (2) 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 the eight Toxicity Characteristic (TC) metals listed in 
Sec. 261.24, nickel, cyanide, zinc, and sulfide from representative 
samples of the dewatered (unstabilized) filter cake and the stabilized 
filter cake; (4) results from the EP Toxicity Test and the Toxicity 
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW-846 Method 1311) for the 
eight TC metals (except for barium and selenium) and nickel from 
representative samples of the dewatered (unstabilized) filter cake, 
uncured stabilized filter cake, and the cured stabilized filter cake; 
(5) results from total oil and grease analyses from representative 
samples of the dewatered (unstabilized) filter cake and stabilized 
filter cake; (6) results from the Multiple Extraction Procedure (MEP, 
SW-846 Method 1320) for the eight TC metals (except for barium and 
selenium) and nickel from representative samples of the stabilized 
filter cake; (7) test results and information regarding the hazardous 
characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity; (8) 
results from the TCLP analyses for the TC volatile and semivolatile 
organic compounds from representative samples of the dewatered 
(unstabilized) filter cake; and (9) results from total constituent 
analyses for hexavalent chromium from representative samples of 
dewatered (unstabilized) filter cake.
    Similar to other facilities seeking upfront exclusions, once BSC's 
proposed stabilization system is on-line at its Sparrows Point, 
Maryland facility, BSC would be required to submit additional 
analytical data for the petitioned waste to verify that the on-line 
stabilization system meets the treatment capability of the 
stabilization process as described in the petition and the verification 
testing conditions specified in the exclusion (see Section F--
Verification Testing Conditions).
    BSC's Sparrows Point, Maryland facility is involved in 
electroplating operations producing tin and chromium plated parts and 
steel strip. Three plating lines contribute wastes to the wastewater 
treatment plant generating BSC's chromium high density filter cake, 
namely, a tin free steel-chromium type (TFSCT) plating line and two 
halogen tinning lines.
    The TFSCT plating line is designed to deposit a layer of chromium 
on the steel strip with an additional outer protective covering of 
chromium oxides. The TFSCT plating line consists of five major 
sections: The Entry Section, the Pre-Treatment Section, the Plating 
Section, the Post-Treatment Section, and the Delivery Section. The 
purpose of the entry section is to join the ends of the steel coils in 
preparation for subsequent continuous processing in the following 
sections. The pre-treatment section cleans and prepares the steel to be 
plated. The strip passes through an electrolytic cleaning system, brush 
scrubber, and pickle and pickle rinse cells to remove oil, dirt, rust, 
and other foreign substances. In the plating section, the steel strip 
passes through the plater conditioner cell prior to entering the 
plating cell. The chromium and chromium oxide layers are 
electrolytically plated onto the steel strip. The steel strip is 
rinsed, after it leaves the plater, in the dragout and rinse cells. In 
the post-treatment section, the coated steel strip is washed, dried, 
and oiled prior to being coiled for shipping or storage. The oil film 
helps to prevent scratching of the coated strip during handling, serves 
as a lubricant for punching and forming operations, and retards 
oxidation and corrosion. The delivery section consists of the equipment 
required for strip tension control, storage, measurement and 
inspection, and shearing and winding into coils.
    During the TFSCT plating process overflow chromic acid solution 
from the plater conditioner, overflow rinse waters from the dragout and 
rinse cells of the plater section, and overflow rinse waters from the 
final washer cell are sent to a sump (the chromium sump) which collects 
only chromium-bearing wastewaters. The collected wastewater is then 
pumped from the chromium sump to the chromium High Density Sludge (HDS) 
Wastewater Treatment Plant. In addition, if it is necessary to shut 
down the TFSCT plating line for repairs or in the event of a strip 
break, chromium-bearing wastewaters from the plater conditioner and 
plater section are sent to a storage tank for subsequent treatment via 
the chromium HDS wastewater treatment plant.
    The two halogen tinning lines are designed to deposit a thin layer 
of tin on metal strip with an outer protective covering of a very thin 
film of chromium and chromium oxides. The two halogen lines also 
consist of five major sections: the Entry Section, the Pre-treatment 
Section, the Tin Plating Section, the Post-Treatment Section, and the 
Delivery Section. The purpose of the entry section is to join the ends 
of the coils in preparation for subsequent continuous processing in the 
following sections. The pre-treatment section cleans and prepares the 
metal strip to be plated. The metal strip is cleaned in a hot, alkaline 
solution. A brush scrubber removes loosened dirt and any remaining 
caustic film, then a sulfuric acid solution is used to remove metal 
oxides. A second brush scrubber removes the remaining acid film. In the 
plating section, the cleaned, prepared metal strip is electroplated 
with tin. In the tin plating unit, the strip rides on top of the 
halogen plating solution, while a series of soluble anodes below the 
surface provide the tin for plating. The metal strip is sprayed and 
rinsed, after it leaves the plater, to remove any residual plating 
solution. After being dried, the metal strip passes through the 
electrical induction reflow (melting) process where the plated tin is 
converted from a matte (as plated) finish to a bright finish. The post-
treatment section consists of a chemical treatment tank and a washer. 
In the chemical treatment tanks sodium dichromate is used to produce a 
thin uniform chromium and chromium oxide layer on the tinned surface 
via cathodic electrolysis. The film serves to stabilize or 
``passivate'' the tinned surface preventing the undesirable tin oxides 
from forming. This section is completed with a dryer, Trion oiler, and 
a bridle roll. The delivery section consists of the delivery looping 
tower, a bridle roll, inspection and a recoil area where the metal 
strip is cut and transferred to empty reels.
    During the halogen tinning process, rinse waters from the chemical 
treatment washer are sent to the chemical treat sump and further pumped 
to the chromium HDS treatment system. This is the only wastewater 
entering the chromium HDS wastewater treatment system from the Halogen 
Tinning Lines.
    The waste streams from the TFSCT plating (chromium sump) and 
Halogen Tinning (chemical treat sump) lines are combined in a 50,000-
gallon storage tank. From the storage tank the wastewater is pumped to 
a 10,000-gallon reduction reactor where the pH of the wastewater is 
adjusted by the addition of sulfuric acid. In addition, liquid sulfur 
dioxide (SO2) is added to reduce hexavalent chromium to trivalent 
chromium. The reduced chromium wastewater is next transferred to a 
7,000-gallon neutralization tank and mixed with lime and previously-
precipitated solids. The wastewater then flows by gravity to a 1,200-
gallon flocculator tank where a polymer is added to promote 
flocculation of the metal hydroxides. The neutralized wastewater, 
containing approximately 2-5 percent solids, is then sent through a 50-
foot diameter gravity thickener, where thickened sludge is removed and 
subsequently dewatered by a rotary drum vacuum filter to 35-55 percent 
solids. The thickener effluent is filtered and the filtrate is 
discharged to the Tin Mill Canal for further wastewater treatment prior 
to discharge to a receiving surface water body. The filtrate from the 
vacuum filter and the filter backwash are returned to the flocculator 
tank. The dewatered filter cake is discharged to a collection hopper 
and currently shipped to/treated at a permitted hazardous waste 
treatment facility (Envirite Corporation, York, Pennsylvania) before 
disposal.
    In its petition, BSC proposed to stabilize the dewatered filter 
cake using lime kiln dust and powerplant fly ash. This process is based 
on the pozzolanic reaction that adsorbs and/or encapsulates the heavy 
metals present in the chromium filter cake into a calcium-alumino-
silicate matrix. Based on bench-scale studies of its proposed 
stabilization process, BSC proposed using 3 parts lime kiln dust, 2 
parts powerplant fly ash to 5 parts dewatered filter cake (by weight) 
and 2 parts water to form the stabilized filter cake. Once delisted, 
BSC plans to dispose of the stabilized filter cake at an on-site to-be-
constructed Subtitle D landfill.
    BSC initially collected a total of four composite samples of its 
dewatered filter cake during a four-week period between April 1, 1988 
and April 28, 1988. The samples were collected using a scoop as sludge 
was discharged from the end of the vacuum filter press. Each composite 
sample was comprised of grab samples collected over a period of 
approximately five days. Portions of the composite samples were then 
stabilized using lime kiln dust and powerplant fly ash in a bench-scale 
process. Specifically, 1,000 grams of dewatered filter cake were mixed 
with 600 grams of lime kiln dust, 400 grams of powerplant fly ash, and 
water and allowed to cure until air-dried.
    BSC provided analysis results for samples of dewatered 
(unstabilized) filter cake, filter cake samples that had just been 
stabilized, and filter cake samples that were allowed to cure for 15 
days. Four composite samples of dewatered (unstabilized) filter cake 
and four composite samples of stabilized filter cake samples were 
analyzed for the total concentrations (i.e., mass of a particular 
constituent per mass of waste) of the eight TC metals, nickel, cyanide, 
zinc, sulfide, and total oil and grease content. Composite samples of 
dewatered (unstabilized) filter cake, uncured stabilized filter cake, 
and cured stabilized filter cake were also analyzed for EP Toxicity and 
TCLP leachate concentrations (i.e., mass of a particular constituent 
per unit volume of extract) of the eight TC metals (except for barium 
and selenium) and nickel.
    On March 18, 1992, BSC submitted additional information which 
included results from the analysis of four composite samples of 
dewatered (unstabilized) filter cake. These samples were collected over 
a period of four weeks from January 15, 1992 to February 10, 1992. 
Using a stainless steel scoop, BSC collected grab samples from the 
middle and both ends of the filter drum to ensure a representative 
sample. Each daily composite sample was comprised of 5 grab samples. 
After the last grab sample was taken each day, the samples of filter 
cake were thoroughly mixed to form the daily composite. All four 
dewatered (unstabilized) filter cake composite samples were analyzed 
for total chromium, hexavalent chromium, and TCLP leachate 
concentrations of the TC volatile and semivolatile organic compounds.
    BSC claims that due to consistent manufacturing and waste treatment 
processes, the analytical data obtained from the two sampling events 
are representative of any variation in the chemically stabilized 
wastewater treatment filter cake constituent concentrations. BSC 
further explained in its petition that the samples collected in January 
and February 1992 represent filter cake generated specifically when 
different combinations of the three plating lines were operating.

C. Agency Analysis

    BSC used SW-846 Method 7000 to quantify the total constituent 
concentrations of arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, nickel, selenium, 
silver, and zinc in the filter cake samples. BSC used an Agency 
approved Bethlehem Steel Standard Method\1\ to quantify the total 
constituent concentration of chromium in the filter cake samples. BSC 
used SW-846 Method 3060 to digest the samples, and then followed Method 
7195 to analyze/quantify hexavalent chromium concentrations in the 
dewatered (unstabilized) filter cake samples. BSC used ``Determination 
of Mercury in Water By Gold-Film Analyzer'', to quantify the total 
constituent concentration of mercury in the filter cake samples. BSC 
used SW-846 Method 9010 to quantify the total constituent concentration 
of cyanide in the filter cake samples. BSC used ``Methods for Chemical 
Analysis of Water and Wastes'' Method 376.1 to quantify the total 
constituent concentration of sulfide in the filter cake samples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Bethlehem Steel Standard Method. ``Methods of Sampling and 
Analysis Vol. I Iron and Steel'' - Chromium by the Persulfate 
Oxidation Method. Additional descriptive information about this 
method is included in the RCRA public docket for today's notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using SW-846 Method 9071, BSC determined that its stabilized filter 
cake had a maximum oil and grease content of 0.099 percent; therefore, 
the leachate analyses did not have to be modified in accordance with 
the Oily Waste EP methodology (i.e., wastes having more than one 
percent total oil and grease may either have significant concentrations 
of constituents of concern in the oil phase, which may not be assessed 
using the standard leachate procedures, or the concentration of oil and 
grease may be sufficient to coat the solid phase of the sample and 
interfere with the leaching of metals from the sample).
    BSC used SW-846 Method 1310 (EP)/Method 7000 to quantify the EP 
leachable concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, 
nickel, and silver in the filter cake samples, and used modified SW-846 
Method 1310 (using distilled waster, instead of acetate buffer, in the 
extraction) and Method 9010 to quantify the EP leachable concentration 
of cyanide in cured stabilized samples. BSC used SW-846 Method 1311 
(TCLP)/Method 7000 to quantify the TCLP leachable concentrations of 
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and silver in the 
filter cake samples. BSC used SW-846 Method 1320 (MEP)/Method 7000 to 
quantify the MEP leachable concentrations of the TC metals (except for 
barium and selenium) and nickel in the cured stabilized filter cake.
    Table 1 presents the maximum total constituent concentrations of 
the eight TC metals, nickel, cyanide, zinc, and sulfide for the 
dewatered (unstabilized) filter cake and stabilized filter cake.

Table 1.--Maximum Total Constituent Concentrations (ppm)\1\ Filter Cake 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Dewatered     Stabilized
               Constituents                  (unstabilized)  filter cake
                                              filter cake               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic....................................         <2.0          52    
Barium.....................................       <100          <100    
Cadmium....................................          0.55          0.50 
Chromium (total)...........................    240,000        55,000    
Chromium (hexavalent)......................         45       ...........
Lead.......................................        140           350    
Mercury....................................          0.087         0.091
Nickel.....................................         96            85    
Selenium...................................         <1.0          <1.0  
Silver.....................................         <6.0          <6.0  
Cyanide (total)............................        342            52    
Zinc.......................................        120            90    
Sulfide....................................        220          160     
------------------------------------------------------------------------