[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 244 (Monday, December 21, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70360-70368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-33710]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-6206-2]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
grant a petition submitted by Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa),
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to exclude (or ``delist''), on a one-time
basis, certain solid wastes generated by its wastewater treatment plant
and interred at the Stolle Landfill located in Sidney, Ohio from the
lists of hazardous wastes contained in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261.
This landfill was used exclusively by Stolle Corporation, a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Alcoa, for disposal of its wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP) filter cake from 1981 to 1992. 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 266, 268 and 273, 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. This proposed decision is based on an
evaluation of waste-specific information provided by the petitioner. If
this proposed decision is finalized, the petitioned waste will be
excluded from the requirements of the hazardous waste regulations under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
DATES: EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision.
Comments must be received in writing by February 4, 1999. 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 Robert Springer, Director, Waste, Pesticides and
Toxics Division, at the address below, by January 20, 1999. The request
must contain the information prescribed in Sec. 260.20(d).
ADDRESSES: Two copies of any comments should be sent to Peter
Ramanauskas, Waste Management Branch (DW-8J), U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W.
Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.
Requests for a hearing should be addressed to Robert Springer,
Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division (D-8J), U.S. EPA Region
5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.
The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule is located at the
U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, and is
available for viewing from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call Peter Ramanauskas at (312)
886-7890 for appointments. The public may copy material from the
regulatory docket at $0.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning
this document, contact Peter Ramanauskas at the address above or at
(312) 886-7890.
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 Secs. 261.31
and 261.32. These wastes are listed as hazardous because they typically
and frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous
wastes identified in Subpart C of Part 261 (i.e., ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or meet the criteria for listing
contained in Sec. 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3).
Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste
that is described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a
specific waste from an individual facility meeting the listing
description may not be. For this reason, Secs. 260.20 and 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 its wastes excluded, a petitioner must show that wastes
generated at its facility do not meet any of the criteria for which the
wastes were listed. See Sec. 260.22(a)(1) 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. See
Sec. 260.22(a)(2). Accordingly, a petitioner also must demonstrate that
the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics
(i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity), and must
present sufficient information for EPA to determine whether the waste
contains any other constituents at hazardous levels. 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,
[[Page 70361]]
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 Sec. 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 EPA 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). EPA
plans to address issues related to waste mixtures and residues in a
future rulemaking.
B. Approach Used To Evaluate This Petition
Alcoa's petition requests a delisting for a listed hazardous waste.
In making the initial delisting determination, EPA evaluated the
petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in
Sec. 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, EPA tentatively
agreed with the petitioner, pending public comment, that the waste is
non-hazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. If EPA 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
other factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA considered
whether the waste is acutely toxic, and considered the concentration of
the constituents in the waste, the toxicity of the constituents, their
tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in the
environment if 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, EPA used such information
gathered to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground water,
surface water, air) for hazardous constituents present in the
petitioned waste. As Alcoa's waste is presently landfilled, EPA
determined that the major exposure route of concern would be ingestion
of contaminated ground water. Therefore, EPA used a fate and transport
model to predict the maximum concentrations of hazardous constituents
that may be released from the petitioned waste and to determine the
potential impact of Alcoa's petitioned waste on human health and the
environment. Specifically, EPA used the estimated waste volume and the
maximum reported extract concentrations as inputs to estimate the
constituent concentrations in the ground water at a hypothetical
receptor well down gradient from the disposal site. The calculated
receptor well concentrations were then compared directly to the health-
based levels at an assumed risk of 10-6 used in delisting
decision-making for the hazardous constituents of concern. The maximum
concentrations detected in the leachate were then compared directly to
the maximum allowable levels determined by the volume dependent
dilution attenuation factor times the health-based level.
EPA believes that this fate and transport model represents a
reasonable worst-case scenario for the petitioned waste, 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 (Parts 260 through 266 and 268). 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, should not pose a threat to
human health or the environment.
EPA also considers the applicability of ground-water monitoring
data during the evaluation of delisting petitions which can provide
significant additional information important to fully characterize the
potential impact (if any) of the disposal of a petitioned waste on
human health and the environment. To support the delisting of the
Stolle WWTP filter cake described in its petition as EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers F006 and F019, groundwater samples expected to be
representative of groundwater resources in the immediate vicinity of
the Stolle landfill were used to assess impacts to groundwater.
From the evaluation of the delisting petition, proposed maximum
allowable leachate concentrations were developed for a list of
constituents by back-calculating from the delisting health-based levels
through the proposed fate and transport model.
Finally, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
specifically require EPA to provide notice and an opportunity for
comment before granting or denying a final exclusion. Thus, a final
decision will not be made until all timely public comments (including
those at public hearings, if any) on today's proposal are addressed.
II. Disposition of Delisting Petition
Aluminum Company of America, Alcoa Corporate Center, 201 Isabella
Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15212-5858
A. Petition for Exclusion
Stolle Products [a.k.a. Stolle Plant #2, formerly a division of
Stolle Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Aluminum Company
of America (Alcoa); currently a division of American Trim, L.L.C.],
located at 1501 Michigan Street in Sidney, Ohio, fabricates, assembles,
and finishes aluminum and steel automotive, appliance, and decorative
products. The metal finishing operations, which consist of sulfuric
acid anodizing, chemical conversion coating, and painting, generate
wastewaters that are treated in an on-site wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) which ultimately generates a filter cake. Through 1987, metal
finishing operations also included electroplating with rinsewater from
the electroplating process discharged to the WWTP. The WWTP filter
press sludge generated from this process is 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.'' and F019--``Wastewater
treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum
except from zirconium phosphating in aluminum can washing when such
phosphating is an exclusive conversion coating process.'' (40 CFR
261.31). F006 waste is listed for cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel,
and complexed cyanide and F019 waste is listed for hexavalent chromium
and complexed cyanide (40 CFR 261 Appendix VII).
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 Sec. 260.22.
[[Page 70362]]
B. Background
On May 13, 1996, Alcoa petitioned EPA to exclude the estimated
total volume of 16,772 cubic yards of WWTP filter press sludge
previously disposed of in the Stolle landfill from the list of
hazardous wastes contained in Sec. 261.31 because it believed that the
petitioned waste did not meet any of the criteria under which the waste
was listed and that there were no additional constituents or factors
that could cause the waste to be hazardous. Subsequently, Alcoa
provided additional information to complete its petition. In support of
its petition, Alcoa submitted detailed descriptions of its
manufacturing and wastewater treatment processes, a schematic diagram
of the wastewater treatment process, and analytical testing results for
representative samples of the petitioned waste, including (1) the
hazardous characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity;
(2) total oil and grease; (3) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP, SW-846 Method 1311) analyses for volatile and semi-
volatile organic compounds, herbicides, pesticides, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), metals, fluoride, and cyanide (using deionized water
instead of acid); (4) total sulfide, total cyanide and total fluoride;
(5) total constituent analysis for 40 CFR 264 Appendix IX metals (plus
hexavalent chromium for which F006 and F019 wastes are listed), VOCs,
SVOCs, pesticides and herbicides, and PCBs.
Between 1981 and 1992, the facility's metal finishing operations,
which consisted of sulfuric acid anodizing, chemical conversion
coating, painting, and/or electroplating (through 1987) generated
wastewaters which were routed to and treated in an on-site WWTP. The
resulting filter cake was disposed of in the Stolle landfill. Since
October 1992, filter cake generated during Stolle Plant #2 WWTP
operation has been collected in roll-off containers for disposal off
site at a RCRA Subtitle C permitted facility.
The Stolle Plant #2 WWTP is an industrial wastewater pretreatment
facility which discharges treated water to the City of Sidney sanitary
sewer system for final treatment in a Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTW). Industrial waste streams produced during Stolle Plant #2
manufacturing processes and discharged to the WWTP may be generally
characterized as (1) anodizing process rinse waters containing
suspended and dissolved metal salts, acids, alkalies, surfactants and
organic contaminants; (2) anodizing process dumps which include
concentrated acids and alkalies containing high levels of dissolved
solids; (3) acid and alkali cleaner dumps and rinse water containing
surfactants, wetting agents, phosphates, and organic contaminants; (4)
hexavalent and total chromium wastes; (5) spent deionizer regenerants
and softener backwash water containing dissolved solids, acids, and
caustics; (6) spent dyes and; (7) miscellaneous plant wastes.
Treatment at the WWTP is a continuous operation. From 1981 to 1992
industrial wastewater discharged from Stolle Plant #2 would flow to a
modulation lagoon which functioned as a holding/surge basin prior to
treatment in the WWTP. The lagoon was used to equalize batch discharges
and peak loading such that wastewater could be fed to the WWTP at a
constant flow rate to maximize efficient operation of the WWTP.
Wastewater gravity-flowed from the lagoon to the lime neutralization
tank. Spent acid anodizing solution from the anodizing process, which
was stored in a 20,000 gallon waste sulfuric acid tank, was slowly
metered into the wastewater stream as it flowed from the lagoon to the
lime neutralization tank. Lime slurry was used for neutralization and
metals complexing to form metal hydroxide. The mixture overflowed the
lime neutralization tank and gravity-flowed to two Lamella settlers
consisting of Lamella clarifiers and flocculators. In the clarifiers,
the metal hydroxides precipitated, flocculated, and settled. Settling
properties were improved through polymer addition to the clarifiers.
Treated effluent was then discharged to the Sidney sanitary sewer
system.
The sludge precipitated in the Lamella clarifiers was pumped to a
sludge thickener for solids concentration prior to dewatering. The
thickener supernatant (overflow) flowed by gravity directly to the
effluent discharge piping, while the thickened sludge flowed by gravity
to a sludge pit. Sludge was drawn from the sludge pit and pumped to a
plate-and-frame filter press (formerly a belt filter press from 1981 to
1983) for dewatering. The resulting filter cake (30 to 40 percent
solids) was disposed of in Stolle's on-site landfill.
The landfill contains three trenches averaging approximately 570
feet in length by 15 feet in width with a 4 foot fill depth and five
area fill cells of varying dimensions with an 8 foot fill depth. The
trench and cell floors are comprised of indigenous silt/clay having a
permeability range of 8.8 x 10-9 cm/sec to 1.2 x
10-8 cm/sec.
Once filled, all trenches and cells (except Cell #5) were capped
with approximately two feet of well-compacted soil of low permeability
and were graded to prevent surface water ponding. A vegetated cover
consisting of native grass was established. Cell #5 was closed in 1993
before it was completely full. The closure of Cell #5 began with
placement of 220 tons of Type C rock fill in the cell followed by
compaction to assure a stable subgrade prior to placing additional
lifts of soil. Forty-eight tons of pozzalime were added to the cell
bottom for additional stabilization. The remaining cell area was filled
with 3,753 cubic yards of fill material in 6 to 8 inch lifts and
compacted to at least 95% of standard proctor and plus or minus 3% of
optimum moisture content as defined by ASTM D698 and Alcoa Engineering
Standards.
Construction of an Ohio EPA approved landfill cap was completed in
October, 1996. The engineered cap system consists of a 24-inch
compacted clay layer immediately above the waste material. A 60 mil
flexible membrane liner (FML) was placed over the compacted clay layer.
A drainage layer consisting of high density polyethylene (HDPE)
drainage netting and woven filtration geotextile was installed above
the FML. The final cover consists of 24 inches of native soil obtained
from an on-site borrow area followed by 6 inches of topsoil which was
vegetated with indigenous grass. The cap system includes surface and
subsurface drainage controls.
Alcoa submitted a signed Certification of Accuracy and
Responsibility statement presented in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12). The EPA
reviews a petitioner's estimates and, on occasion, has requested a
petitioner to re-evaluate the estimated waste volume. EPA accepts
Alcoa's estimate.
C. Waste Analysis
Alcoa performed a full 40 CFR 264 Appendix IX analytical scan and
other analyses on the filter cake samples from the Stolle landfill, as
well as on the groundwater samples from the monitoring well network
associated with the landfill, less dioxins and furans (combustion or
incineration processes were non-existent at Stolle Plant #2;
consequently, dioxins and furans were not expected to be present in the
filter cake and were not included on the analytical parameter list).
For Alcoa's petition, one filter cake composite sample was
collected from each landfill sector (i.e. trench and cell). By
collecting a composite sample from each landfill sector, the results of
filter cake sampling are representative of filter cake variability over
time since each
[[Page 70363]]
trench and cell contains filter cake generated over a one to two year
period. One composite filter cake sample was prepared for each of the
eight landfill sectors. Composite samples consisting of material
retrieved from four soil borings per sector were analyzed for Appendix
IX constituents and other constituents. Composite filter cake samples
collected from landfill sectors 1, 3, 6, and 8 were not analyzed for
pesticides/PCBs or herbicides as per agreement with the EPA.
To quantify the filter cake total constituent and leachate
concentrations, Alcoa used the following SW-846 Methods: 6010 for
antimony, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, nickel,
silver, tin, vanadium, and zinc; 7060 for arsenic; 7421 for lead; 7471
for total mercury and 7470 for leachate mercury; 7740 for selenium;
7841 for thallium; 3060/7196 for hexavalent chromium; 9010 for cyanide
(total and complexed); 9030 for sulfide; 8080 for PCBs; 8080/8140 for
pesticides; 8150 for herbicides; 8240 for volatile organic compounds;
and 8270 for semi-volatile organic compounds. EPA Method 340.2 was used
to determine fluoride concentration. Alcoa used these methods along
with the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW-846
Method 1311) to determine leachate concentrations of metals, cyanide,
fluoride, herbicides, pesticides, PCBs, volatile organic compounds, and
semi-volatile organic compounds. Using SW-846 Methods 9070/9071, Alcoa
determined that the samples of the petitioned waste had oil and grease
contents below detectable limits. If the total oil & grease
concentrations had been greater than or equal to 1%, the Oily Waste
Extraction Procedure, Method 1330, would have been required.
Characteristic testing of the filter cake samples included analysis of
ignitability (SW-846 Method 1010) and corrosivity (SW-846 Method 9045).
Samples were not analyzed for reactive cyanide and reactive sulfide as
total concentrations of cyanide and sulfide did not exceed 250 ppm and
500 ppm respectively.
Table 1 presents the maximum total and leachate concentrations for
15 metals, total cyanide, total sulfide, and fluoride.
The detection limits presented in Table 1 represent the lowest
concentrations quantifiable by Alcoa when using the appropriate SW-846
methods to analyze its waste. (Detection limits may vary according to
the waste and waste matrix being analyzed, i.e., the ``cleanliness'' of
waste matrices varies and ``dirty'' waste matrices may cause
interferences, thus raising detection limits.)
Table 1.--Maximum Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations\1\ WWTP
Filter Cake
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
constituent TCLP leachate
Inorganic constituents analyses (mg/ analyses (mg/
kg) l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony................................ 25.0 <0.025
Arsenic................................. 13.0 0.011
Barium.................................. 630.0 0.120
Beryllium............................... 1.2 <0.001
Chromium (total)........................ 3300.0 0.004
Chromium (hexavalent)................... 1.5 NA
Cobalt.................................. 34.0 0.019
Copper.................................. 1500.0 0.070
Lead.................................... 110.0 <0.001
Mercury................................. 0.29 <0.0002
Nickel.................................. 2700.0 7.7
Selenium................................ 0.87 <0.005
Tin..................................... 240.0 <0.053
Vanadium................................ 13.0 0.008
Zinc.................................... 5700.0 0.590
Cyanide (total)......................... <2.1 <0.01
Sulfide (total)......................... 16.0 NA
Fluoride................................ 13.5 0.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent
found in any one sample. These levels do not necessarily represent the
specific levels found in one sample.
-6cm/sec, was used for
embankment construction. In addition, as a requirement by the OEPA,
Stolle was required to construct an underdrain system for collection
and discharge of surface water to prevent ponding. Since 1984, all
water collected via the underdrain system has been released to the
Sidney sanitary sewer system for treatment. EPA believes that
containment structures at the Stolle landfill, including the engineered
cap, can effectively control surface water run-off. Furthermore, the
concentrations of any hazardous constituents in the run-off will tend
to be lower than the extraction procedure test results reported in
today's notice because of the aggressive acidic media used for
extraction in the TCLP. EPA believes that, in general, leachate derived
from the waste is unlikely to directly enter a surface water body
without first traveling through the saturated subsurface where
dilution/attenuation of hazardous constituents will also occur.
Leachable concentrations provide a direct measure of the solubility of
a toxic constituent in water, and are indicative of the fraction of the
constituents that may be mobilized in surface water, as well as ground
water. The reported TCLP data shows that the constituents that might
leach from Alcoa's waste to surface water are likely to be below the
health-based levels of concern. EPA, therefore, concludes that Alcoa's
waste is not a significant hazard to human health or the environment
via the surface water exposure pathway.
E. Conclusion
Based on descriptions of the process from which the petitioned
waste is derived, descriptions of Alcoa's wastewater treatment process,
and analytical characterization of the petitioned waste, EPA believes
that Alcoa has successfully demonstrated that the petitioned waste is
not hazardous. EPA, therefore, proposes to grant a one-time exclusion
to Alcoa for its WWTP filter cake described in its petition as EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. F006 and F019. If made final, the proposed
exclusion will apply only to the approximately 16,772 cubic yards of
petitioned waste present in the Stolle landfill.
III. Effect on State Authorizations
This proposed exclusion, if promulgated, would be issued under the
Federal (RCRA) delisting program. States, however, may impose more
stringent regulatory requirements than EPA, 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 State regulatory authorities to determine the
current status of their wastes under the State laws.
Furthermore, some States (e.g., Louisiana and Illinois) are
authorized to administer a delisting program in lieu of the Federal
program (i.e., to make their own delisting decisions). Therefore, this
proposed exclusion, if promulgated, would not apply in those authorized
States. If the petitioned waste will be transported to any State with
delisting authorization, Alcoa must obtain delisting authorization from
that State before the waste may be managed as nonhazardous in the
State.
IV. Effective Date
This rule, if made final, will become effective immediately upon
such final publication. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984 amended Section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become effective in
less than six months when the regulated community does not need the
six-month period to come into compliance. That is the case here,
because this rule, if finalized, would reduce the existing requirements
for persons generating hazardous wastes. In light of the unnecessary
hardship and expense that would be imposed on this petitioner by an
effective date six months after publication and the fact that a six-
month deadline is not necessary to achieve the purpose of Section 3010,
EPA believes that this exclusion should be effective immediately upon
final publication. These reasons also provide a basis for making this
rule effective immediately, upon final publication, under the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
V. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA must judge whether a regulation is
``major'' and therefore subject to the requirement of a Regulatory
Impact Analysis. The proposal to grant an exclusion is not major, since
its effect, if promulgated, would be to reduce the overall costs and
economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. This
reduction would be achieved by excluding waste generated at a specific
facility from EPA's lists of hazardous wastes, thereby enabling this
facility to manage its waste as non-hazardous. There is no additional
impact, therefore, due to today's proposed rule. This proposal is not a
major regulation; therefore, no Regulatory Impact Analysis is required.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 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).
The Administrator or delegated representative may certify, however,
that the rule will not have a
[[Page 70367]]
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule, if promulgated, will not have an adverse economic impact
on small entities since its effect would be to reduce the overall costs
of EPA's hazardous waste regulations. Accordingly, I hereby certify
that this proposed regulation, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This regulation, therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility
analysis.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and record-keeping requirements associated
with this proposed rule have been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980 (P.L. 96-511, 44 USC 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB
Control Number 2050-0053.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995,
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. 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. EPA
finds that today's proposed delisting decision is deregulatory in
nature and does not impose any enforceable duty upon State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. In addition, the proposed
delisting does not establish any regulatory requirements for small
governments and so does not require a small government agency plan
under UMRA section 203.
IX. Children's Health Protection
Under Executive Order (``EO'') 13045, for all ``significant''
regulatory actions as defined by EO 12866, EPA must provide an
evaluation of the environmental health or safety effect of a proposed
rule on children and an explanation of why the proposed rule is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by EPA. This proposal is not a significant
regulatory action and is exempt from EO 13045.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental Protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: November 24, 1998.
Robert Springer,
Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR Part 261 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for Part 261 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of Part 261 it is proposed to add the
following waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as
follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and
260.22.
Table 1.--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Aluminum Company of America.......... 750 Norcold Ave., 1. Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludges
Sidney, Ohio 45365. generated from the chemical conversion coating
of aluminum (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019) and
WWTP sludges generated from electroplating
operations (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006) and
stored in an on-site landfill. This is a one-
time exclusion for approximately 16,772 cubic
yards of landfilled WWTP filter cake. This
exclusion was published on [insert publication
date of the final rule].
2. The constituent concentrations measured in
the TCLP extract may not exceed the following
levels (mg/L): Arsenic--5; Barium--200;
Chromium--10; Cobalt--210; Copper--140; Nickel--
70; Vanadium--20; Zinc--1000; Fluoride--400;
Acetone--400; Methylene Chloride--0.5; Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate--0.6.
3. (a) If, anytime after disposal of the
delisted waste, Alcoa possesses or is otherwise
made aware of any environmental data (including
but not limited to leachate data or groundwater
monitoring data) or any other data relevant to
the delisted waste indicating that any
constituent identified in Condition (2) is at a
level in the leachate higher than the delisting
level established in Condition (2), or is at a
level in the ground water or soil higher than
the health based level, then Alcoa must report
such data, in writing, to the Regional
Administrator within 10 days of first
possessing or being made aware of that data.
(b) Based on the information described in
paragraph (a) and any other information
received from any source, the Regional
Administrator will make a preliminary
determination as to whether the reported
information requires Agency action to protect
human health or the environment. Further action
may include suspending or revoking the
exclusion, or other appropriate response
necessary to protect human health and the
environment.
[[Page 70368]]
(c) If the Regional Administrator determines
that the reported information does require
Agency action, the Regional Administrator will
notify the facility in writing of the actions
the Regional Administrator believes are
necessary to protect human health and the
environment. The notice shall include a
statement of the proposed action and a
statement providing the facility with an
opportunity to present information as to why
the proposed Agency action is not necessary or
to suggest an alternative action. The facility
shall have 10 days from the date of the
Regional Administrator's notice to present such
information.
(d) Following the receipt of information from
the facility described in paragraph (c) or (if
no information is presented under paragraph (c)
the initial receipt of information described in
paragraph (a)), the Regional Administrator will
issue a final written determination describing
the Agency actions that are necessary to
protect human health or the environment. Any
required action described in the Regional
Administrator's determination shall become
effective immediately, unless the Regional
Administrator provides otherwise.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 98-33710 Filed 12-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P