[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