[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 180 (Monday, September 16, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48635-48638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23657]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-5608-9]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today is granting a
petition submitted by Bekaert Steel Corporation (Bekaert) of Rogers,
Arkansas, to exclude from hazardous waste control (or delist) certain
solid wastes generated at its facility. This action responds to
Bekaert's petition to delist these wastes under those regulations that
allow any person to petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any
provision of certain hazardous waste regulations of the Code of Federal
Regulations, and specifically provide generators the opportunity to
petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator-
specific'' basis from the hazardous waste lists. After careful
analysis, EPA has concluded that the petitioned waste is not hazardous
waste when disposed of in Subtitle D landfills. This exclusion applies
only to wastewater treatment sludge generated from electroplating
operations at Bekaert's Rogers, Arkansas, facility. Accordingly, this
final rule excludes the petitioned waste from the requirements of
hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of in Subtitle D landfills.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this final rule is located at the
Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202, and is available for viewing in the EPA Library of the
12th floor from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for appointments. The
reference number for this docket is ``F-96-ARDEL-BEKAERT'' The public
may copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the first
100 pages and at a cost of $0.15 per page for additional copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general and technical information
concerning this notice, contact David Vogler, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, (214) 665-7428.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Authority
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition EPA to
remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding them from
the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Secs. 261.31 and 261.32.
Specifically, Sec. 260.20 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
Sec. 260.22 provides generators the opportunity to petition the
Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator-specific'' basis from
the hazardous waste lists. Petitioners must provide sufficient
information to EPA to allow EPA to determine that the waste to be
excluded does not meet any of the criteria under which the waste was
listed as a hazardous waste. In addition, the Administrator must
determine, where he/she has a reasonable basis to believe that factors
(including additional constituents) other than those for which the
waste was listed could cause the
[[Page 48636]]
waste to be a hazardous waste, that such factors do not warrant
retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
B. History of this Rulemaking
Bekaert petitioned EPA to exclude from hazardous waste control the
its filter cake resulting from the treatment of wastewaters originating
from its electroplating operations at the Rogers, Arkansas, facility.
After evaluating the petition, EPA proposed, on June 25, 1996, to
exclude Bekaert's waste from the lists of hazardous wastes under
Secs. 261.31 and 261.32. See 61 FR 32746. This rulemaking addresses
public comments received on the proposal and finalizes the proposed
decision to grant Bekaert's petition.
II. Disposition of Petition
Bekaert Steel Corporation, Rogers, Arkansas
A. Proposed Exclusion
Bekaert petitioned the EPA to exclude from the lists of hazardous
wastes contained in 40 CFR Sec. 261.31 and 261.32, its wastewater
treatment sludges form its electroplating operations. Specifically, in
its petition, 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 this waste 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. 6921(f), and 40 CFR
260.22(d)(2) through (4).
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.
B. Summary of Responses to Public Comments
The EPA received public comment on the June 25, 1996, proposal from
one interested party, the American Zinc Association (AZA).
Classification of Zinc as a Hazardous Constituent
Comment: The AZA is concerned that EPA, in connection with the
delisting petition filed by Bekaert Steel Corporation, appears to view
zinc as a `` hazardous constituent'' to which the EPA Composite for
Model Landfills (EPACML) must be applied. The AZA contends that zinc is
not considered a ``hazardous constituent'' as defined under RCRA, is
not listed on Appendix VIII to 40 CFR part 261 and is specifically
excluded from the definition of ``underlying hazardous constituents''
in 40 CFR 268.2 (i). The AZA requests that the final rule be changed to
exclude zinc.
Response: The criteria for making a successful petition to amend
part 261 to exclude a waste produced at a particular facility can be
found in 40 CFR part 260.22. The regulations in 40 CFR part
260.22(a)(2) state that based on a complete application, the
Administrator must determine where there is a reasonable basis to
believe that factors (including additional constituents), other than
those for which the waste was listed, could cause the waste to be a
hazardous waste; and that such factors do not warrant retaining the
waste as a hazardous waste.
The EPA understands the AZA's concern regarding implication that
zinc is being viewed as a ``hazardous constituent'' in this delisting
petition. In response to this concern, EPA will revise the preamble
language to future rulemakings to read ``the EPACML will be used to
predict the concentrations of constituents that may be released from
the petitioned waste, once it is disposed.'' To evaluate delisting
petitions, any constituent detected in the leachate of the petitioned
waste must be evaluated by the EPACML. All organic and inorganic
constituents detected in the leachate of a petitioned waste are
evaluated for their potential hazard to human health and the
environment. Zinc, while it may not meet the definitions of hazardous
constituent or ``underlying hazardous constituent'' as defined under
the Land Disposal Restrictions, is a constituent found in Bekaert
Steel's waste and moreover, in the leachate of the petitioned waste.
Therefore, to meet the delisting criteria, zinc must be evaluated to
determine if, as a result of leaching into the groundwater, the
concentration of zinc would pose a significant hazard to human health
or the environment.
In the analysis of the leachate from Bekaert's waste, levels of
zinc were detected and the maximum value is reported on the list of
inorganic constituents found in Table 1 of the June 25, 1996, notice.
The evaluation of zinc as an ``additional constituent'' is conducted
and compared to its health-based value and the secondary drinking water
regulations to determine whether the levels of zinc detected could
cause the waste to be a potential hazard. In the case of Bekaert's
waste, the value for zinc is below the level of regulatory concern and
should not present a hazard to human health or the environment.
C. Final Agency Decision
For reasons stated in both the proposal and this notice, EPA
believes that Bekaert's petitioned waste should be excluded from
hazardous waste control. The EPA, therefore, is granting a final
exclusion to Bekaert Steel Corporation, located in Rogers, Arkansas,
for a maximum annual rate 1,250 cubic yards of waste to be measured on
a calendar year basis, described in its petition as EPA Hazardous Waste
No. F006. This exclusion only applies to the waste described in the
petition.
Although management of the waste covered by this petition is
relieved from
[[Page 48637]]
Subtitle C jurisdiction, the generator of the 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 See 40 CFR part 260, Appendix I.
III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion
The final exclusion being granted today is 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. Because a petitioner's waste
may be regulated under a dual system (i.e., both Federal (RCRA) and
State (non-RCRA) programs), petitioners are urged to contact the State
regulatory authority to determine the current status of their wastes
under the State law.
Furthermore, some States (e.g., Louisiana, Georgia, Illinois) are
authorized to administer a delisting program in lieu of the Federal
program, i.e., to make their own delisting decisions. Therefore, this
exclusion does not apply in those authorized States. If the petitioned
waste will be transported to and managed in any State with delisting
authorization, Bekaert must obtain delisting authorization from that
State before the waste can be managed as non-hazardous in the State.
IV. Effective Date
This rule is effective September 16, 1996. 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 reduces, rather than increases, the
existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes. These
reasons also provide a basis for making this rule effective
immediately, upon publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
V. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory
actions. The effect of this rule is to reduce the overall costs and
economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. The
reduction is achieved by excluding waste from EPA's lists of hazardous
wastes, thereby enabling a facility to treat its waste as non-
hazardous. As discussed in EPA's response to public comments, this rule
is unlikely to have an adverse annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more. Therefore, this rule does not represent a significant
regulatory action under the Executive Order, and no assessment of costs
and benefits is necessary. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has 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 which
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 regulation will not have an adverse impact on any small
entities since its effect will be to reduce the overall costs of EPA's
hazardous waste regulations. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this
regulation 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 final rule have been approved by OMB under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 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), P.L. 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement for rules with Federal
mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local, and tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. When such a statement is required for EPA
rules, under section 205 of the UMRA, EPA must identify and consider
alternatives, including the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The
EPA must select that alternative, unless the Administrator explains in
the final rule why it was not selected or it is inconsistent with law.
Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may significantly
or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small
governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in the development
of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them on compliance
with the regulatory requirements.
The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate for regulatory
purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. The EPA finds that today's
delisting decision is deregulatory in nature and does not impose any
enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector. In addition, today's delisting decision does not
establish any regulatory requirements for small governments and so does
not require a small government agency plan under UMRA section 203.
Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Hazardous Waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: September 3, 1996.
Jane N. Saginaw,
Regional Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is 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.
[[Page 48638]]
2. In Table 2 of Appendix IX, part 261 add the following waste
stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
Appendix IX--Wastes Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and 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
1250 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 Sec. 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-23657 Filed 9-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P