[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 236 (Thursday, December 9, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68968-68973]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31965]



[[Page 68968]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 260

[FRL-6505-5]


Proposed Exclusion from the Definition of Solid Waste; Hazardous 
Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
grant a variance from EPA's hazardous waste requirements for certain 
materials reclaimed by the World Resources Company (WRC) from metal-
bearing sludges. This action responds to a petition submittted by WRC 
requesting that the Agency exclude from the RCRA definition of solid 
waste its concentrate material that is partially reclaimed from metal-
bearing sludges and sold to smelters. If the Agency finalizes this 
action, the variance will be limited to five years.

DATES: EPA will accept public comments on its proposed decision until 
February 7, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their 
comments referencing docket number F-99-WRCP-FFFFF to: RCRA Docket 
Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Headquarters, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460. 
Hand deliveries of comments should be made to the Arlington, VA address 
below. Comments may also be submitted electronically to: rcra-
[email protected]. Comments in electronic format should also be 
identified by the docket number F-99-WRCP-FFFFF. All electronic 
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special 
characters and any form of encryption.
    Commenters should not submit electronically any confidential 
business information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be 
submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, 
Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 
20460.
    Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing 
in the RCRA Information Center (RIC) located at Crystal Gateway 1, 
First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The docket is 
open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal 
holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public 
make an appointment by calling (703) 603-9230. The public may copy a 
maximum of 100 pages from the regulatory docket at no charge. 
Additional copies cost $0.15/page. The index is available 
electronically. See the Supplementary Information section for 
information on accessing it.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the 
RCRA/Superfund/EPCRA/UST Hotline at (800) 424-9346 (toll free) or TDD 
(800) 553-7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC metropolitan 
area, call (703) 412-9810 or TDD (703) 412-3323. For more detailed 
information on specific aspects of this rulemaking, contact Ms. Marilyn 
Goode, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, MC 5304W, 401 M Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20460, (703) 308-8800, electronic mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The index to the docket record is available 
on the Internet. Follow these instructions to access the information 
electronically:

WWW: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/hazwaste.htm#id.
FTP: FTP: ftp.epa.gov.
Login: Anonymous
Password: Your Internet Address
Files are located in /pub/epaoswer.

    The official record for this action will be kept in paper form. 
Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electronically 
into paper form and place them in the official record, which will also 
include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record 
is the paper record maintained at the address in ADDRESSES at the 
beginning of this document. EPA responses to comments, whether the 
comments are written or electronic, will be in a notice in the Federal 
Register or in a response to comments document placed in the official 
record for this rulemaking. EPA will not immediately reply to 
commenters electronically other than to seek clarification of 
electronic comments that may be garbled in transmission or during 
conversion to paper form, as discussed above.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Authority
    B. Summary of Petition
    1. Applicability of the Variance
    2. Description of WRC's Partial Reclamation Process
II. Summary of Regulatory Provisions Governing Petitions
III. Evaluation of WRC's Petition Against Each of the Established 
Evaluation Factors
    A. The Degree of Processing the Material has Undergone and the 
Degree of Further Processing that is Required
    B. Value of the Material After it Has Been Partially Reclaimed
    C. The Degree to Which the Partially Reclaimed Material is Like 
an Analogous Raw Material
    D. The Extent to Which an End Market for the Partially Reclaimed 
Material is Guaranteed
    E. The Extent to Which the Partially Reclaimed Material is 
Handled to Minimize Loss
IV. Summary of the Agency's Proposed Decision
V. Request for Comments
VI. Effect of Variance in Arizona
VII. Administrative Requirements

I. Background

A. Authority

    Under 40 CFR 260.30(c), facilities may petition EPA to exclude from 
the definition of solid waste material that has been reclaimed but must 
be reclaimed further before recovery is complete. To qualify for the 
exclusion, the material resulting from initial reclamation must be 
commodity-like (even though it is not yet a commercial product, and has 
to be reclaimed further). Petitioners must provide sufficient 
information to EPA to allow the Agency to make a determination that the 
material is not a solid waste, pursuant to criteria set forth at 40 CFR 
260.31(c).

B. Summary of Petition

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 260.30(c), WRC submitted to EPA a petition for a 
variance from classification as solid waste for metal-rich concentrate 
material produced at its facility in Phoenix, Arizona. WRC produces the 
concentrate primarily from sludges generated by electroplating 
operations. The sludges are rich in metals, and are generally classifed 
as hazardous wastes. WRC then sells the partially reclaimed material to 
primary smelters for metals extraction. Currently, the partially 
reclaimed material produced at the Phoenix facility is fully regulated 
as hazardous waste, must be managed and sold as hazardous waste, and 
off-site shipments must be accompanied by a hazardous waste manifest. 
In support of its variance application, WRC provided data and 
information in its application about each of the factors listed in 40 
CFR 260.31(c).
1. Applicability of the Variance
    At its Phoenix facility, WRC principally reclaims wastewater 
treatment sludges (F006) received from generators who conduct 
electroplating and metal finishing operations. From

[[Page 68969]]

these sludges, WRC ``produces'' a metal-rich concentrate material. In 
addition, the facility also receives and partly reclaims hazardous 
wastes listed as F019 (wastewater treatment sludges from chemical 
conversion coating of aluminum) and D004 through D011 (characteristic 
hazardous wastes). WRC's petition, and the proposed exclusion addressed 
in this notice, pertain only to the metal-bearing sludges listed as 
hazardous wastes F006 and F019 and partially reclaimed at WRC's 
Phoenix, Arizona facility. Other hazardous wastes managed by WRC at its 
Arizona facility and all hazardous wastes managed at other WRC 
facilities are not addressed in this proposed decision and must 
continue to be managed as solid and/or hazardous wastes in accordance 
with all applicable RCRA regulatory requirements.
    The Agency notes that sludges that are hazardous only because they 
exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste that are reclaimed are 
currently excluded from classification as solid waste pursuant to 40 
CFR 261.2(c)(3). Therefore, sludges that are reclaimed by WRC and 
designated as hazardous wastes D004 through D011 are not solid wastes. 
In addition, if this variance is finalized and if these characteristic 
sludges are mixed with the listed metal-bearing sludges covered by the 
variance prior to or during the reclamation process at WRC's Phoenix 
facility, the mixture will not be classified as a solid waste provided 
the mixture is sent off-site for further reclamation and is handled in 
accordance with all the conditions of this variance.
2. Description of WRC's Partial Reclamation Process
    Operations at WRC's Phoenix facility are governed by a Consent 
Agreement and Consent Order (CA/CO) executed by EPA Region IX, WRC, and 
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, hereafter referred to 
as ``ADEQ'' (see In the Matter of World Resources Company, EPA I.D. No. 
AZD980735500, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 
September 3, 1996). The CA/CO includes a requirement to submit an 
application for a treatment and storage permit to ADEQ. At the Arizona 
facility, WRC accepts F006 raw material (as well as other metal-bearing 
sludges) that it judges to be acceptable for recycling based on 
laboratory and process testing of generated sludges. WRC prepares a 
waste profile for the wastestreams received from each generator, which 
includes physical descriptions and constituent content. The material is 
unloaded, examined, and sampled on receiving pads in a processing 
enclosure. WRC dries the received waste through evaporative processes. 
The material is spread out in a controlled area, mechanically furrowed, 
and periodically rotor-tilled to facilitate drying. The physical 
characteristics of the material changes from a wet cohesive nonfree-
flowing mass into a granular free-flowing form. The moisture content of 
the F006 received is reduced by one-half. The entire processing area is 
located on a concrete pad which covers several acres, with a compacted 
native soil and flexible membrane liner underneath the pad.
    The F006 is then blended by mechanical mixing with other waste 
streams received from various generators to achieve concentrates that 
meet the contractual specifications (e.g, recoverable metals contents) 
of its customers. Other than water, WRC neither adds any materials to, 
nor removes any materials from the F006 and F019 metal-bearing sludges 
that it receives from generators and processes. The resulting 
concentrate contains metal hydroxides and oxides of iron, aluminum and 
magnesium. WRC markets the concentrates as copper, nickel, and tin 
concentrates to smelters that recover various metals contained in these 
concentrates.

II. Summary of Regulatory Provisions Governing Petitions

    40 CFR 260.30 provides that the EPA Administrator may grant a 
variance from the classification of solid waste, on a case-by-case 
basis, for materials that have been reclaimed but must be reclaimed 
further before recovery is completed. Such a variance generally is 
contingent upon the material resulting from the initial reclamation 
being ``commodity-like.'' If this variance is finalized, the 
concentrates partially reclaimed from metal-bearing sludges F006 and 
F019 that are shipped to smelters may travel without a hazardous waste 
manifest and will not be subject to any RCRA controls other than the 
conditions of this variance (discussed in section IV of this notice). 
Incoming hazardous waste received by WRC at the Phoenix facility is not 
covered by the variance and must be manifested and managed as a 
hazardous waste until shipped to smelters for further reclamation.
    40 CFR 260.31(c) specifies five criteria for evaluating whether a 
specific material qualifies for a ``partially reclaimed material'' 
variance from the definition of solid waste. In addition, 40 CFR 
260.31(c)(6) allows EPA to consider ``other relevant factors'' when 
determining whether or not to grant a requested variance for materials 
that have been reclaimed, but must be reclaimed further. The first 
evaluation criterion (40 CFR 260.31(c)(1)) is the degree of processing 
a material has undergone and the degree of further processing that is 
required for the material to be rendered ``commodity-like.'' Materials 
that have undergone substantial processing to reclaim valuable or 
recyclable materials (but still must undergo a degree of further 
processing) generally satisfy this criterion. Materials that are still 
substantially ``waste-like'' and that need a significant degree of 
further processing or ``treatment'' to be rendered ``commodity-like'' 
do not satisfy the evaluation criterion.
    The second evaluation criterion (Sec. 260.31(c)(2)) requires an 
evaluation of the economic value of the material that has been 
reclaimed, but must be further reclaimed. This criterion is also useful 
in determining whether a material is indeed ``commodity-like.'' To 
satisfy this criterion, petitioners must demonstrate that the initial 
reclamation process increases or contributes to the value of the 
material and that there is a market for the reclaimed material. 
Petitioners generally can demonstrate that this factor is met by 
providing sales information, including quantities of the material sold, 
additional demand for the material (if any), and the price paid for the 
material by purchasers.
    The third evaluation criterion (40 CFR 260.31(c)(3)) is the degree 
to which the reclaimed material is like an analogous raw material. 
Petitioners must demonstrate that the partially reclaimed material is 
similar to an analogous raw material or feedstock for which the 
material may be substituted in a production or reclamation process. In 
addition, the petitioner should demonstrate that the partially 
reclaimed material does not contain significant concentrations of 
hazardous constituents not found in an analogous raw material and that 
do not contribute to the value of the partially reclaimed material when 
used for its intended purpose.
    Under the fourth evaluation criterion (40 CFR 260.31(c)(4)), 
petitioners must demonstrate that an end market for the partially 
reclaimed material is guaranteed. Petitioners must demonstrate that 
there is a secure demand and long-term market for the partially 
reclaimed material and that the chance of large quantities of the 
material being stockpiled due to insufficient demand is unlikely. If a 
petitioner cannot demonstrate that the material enjoys a consistent 
level of demand, with reasonable expectations for the

[[Page 68970]]

same or greater level of demand once a variance is granted, there may 
be risk of the material being stockpiled or stored for a significant 
period of time in containers or other storage units that do not have to 
meet RCRA Subtitle C storage standards. Such situations may pose 
significant risks to human health or the environment.
    The fifth evaluation criterion (40 CFR 260.31(c)(5)) concerns the 
extent to which the partially reclaimed material is handled to minimize 
loss. Petitioners must demonstrate that the material is handled as if 
it were a valuable commodity and in a manner that is protective of 
human health and the environment.
    In addition to the five evaluation factors discussed above, EPA may 
consider other relevant factors in determining whether or not to grant 
a variance from the definition of solid waste for materials that have 
been reclaimed but must be reclaimed further before recovery is 
complete (40 CFR 260.31(c)(6)). These other factors may be raised by 
the petitioner, the Agency, or other interested parties. Such factors 
may be directly applicable to EPA's decision to grant a variance, or 
may be indirectly applicable, but relevant in assigning priorities for 
evaluating a particular petition. For example, EPA might choose to 
evaluate the long-term viability of the recycling or reuse market for 
the partially reclaimed material and the contribution that a variance 
may play in expanding or stabilizing this market. In addition, EPA 
might wish to assess past or ongoing releases at facilities managing 
the partially reclaimed material, or the degree to which corrective 
action activities are being conducted at facilities managing the 
material.

III. Evaluation of WRC's Petition Against Each of the Established 
Evaluation Factors

A. The Degree of Processing the Material has Undergone and the Degree 
of Further Processing That is Required

    The processing steps performed by WRC include sampling and testing 
incoming batches of sludge, evaporating water from the sludges, and 
blending certain listed metal-bearing sludges from different sources to 
form a metal concentrate. The procedure is not elaborate, and the lack 
of substantial physical processing could, under different 
circumstances, lead the Agency to conclude that this criterion had not 
been met. However, despite the elementary nature of the physical 
processing, EPA has concluded that the company is nevertheless 
performing a valuable service for generators of F006 by testing, 
drying, and blending their sludges to ensure that the resultant 
materials are judged by smelters to be acceptable feedstocks. Many 
smelters are reluctant to take F006 sludges directly from 
electroplating operations because of the administrative, handling, and 
quality control activities necessary to manage the relatively small 
volumes generated by individual electroplaters and to ensure that 
materials sent to smelters are appropriate and acceptable for the 
smelting process. The blending, drying, consolidating, and analytical 
processes conducted by WRC may eliminate the amount of pre-processing 
and quality control of sludges that would otherwise be necessary at the 
smelting facility. In support of this view, WRC has long-term contracts 
with generators of F006 sludges to perform this testing, drying, and 
blending service, and the contracts appear to ensure acceptability of 
the material by smelting facilities. In addition, the Agency notes that 
WRC's concentrate has considerably higher economic value than ``as-
generated'' F006 sludges. This indicates that, despite the simple 
nature of the physical processing involved, the resultant product is 
more ``commodity-like'' than ``waste-like,'' and thus the intent of 
this criterion would be satisfied.
    However, the Agency has a potential concern about the legitimacy of 
the WRC reclamation process. This concern is whether the F006 and F019 
sludges accepted and blended to form a concentrate have sufficiently 
high levels of metals to contribute to an end product that is 
acceptable to smelters. If listed sludges containing low or virtually 
no metal content are accepted at the facility and blended with other 
materials (e.g., non-RCRA wastes from electroplating operations) to 
produce a material that is acceptable to smelters, the facility may 
actually be ``treating'' the low metal-content sludge and not 
legitimately recycling the RCRA hazardous waste. Since metal recovery 
is the ultimate purpose for the recycling or reclamation operation, the 
minimum metal content of the incoming hazardous wastes is an important 
factor in evaluating the legitimacy of the process and the 
applicability of the variance. Having a recoverable amount of metals in 
each of the F006 and F019 incoming sludges is a necessary condition for 
WRC's process to be judged a legitimate reclamation operation.
    To address this legitimacy concern, the Agency is proposing to 
condition the exclusion for the partially reclaimed material on the 
requirement that all F-listed sludges received destined for partial 
reclamation to produce the concentrate material must have a minimum 
copper, nickel or tin content of two percent on a dry-weight basis, or 
the equivalent economic value in precious metals (e.g., gold, silver, 
platinum, or palladium). To set this condition, EPA analyzed smelter 
specifications for incoming materials and concluded, generally, that 
metal-bearing secondary materials with a content of less than two 
percent on a dry weight basis for copper, nickel, or tin (or an 
equivalent precious metal value) are not acceptable material at 
smelters. The minimum metal content for F-listed sludge materials 
received by WRC is based upon information collected by the Agency on 
smelter specifications for minimum metal content in an ore or reclaimed 
material. This information is available in the rulemaking docket for 
this proposed variance. The minimum metal content based on smelter 
specifications (rather than use of a higher minimum for metals) is also 
designed to provide incentives for recycling F006 and F019.
    To ensure compliance with the minimum metal content condition for 
F-listed metal-bearing sludges received by WRC's Phoenix facility, the 
Agency is placing an additional condition upon the facility to ensure 
that WRC adequately monitors the metals content of the hazardous waste 
materials received for reclamation. Upon receipt of any non-conforming 
shipment of sludge material, WRC must contact the generator and notify 
the generator that WRC cannot accept further material due to the low 
metal content of the waste. However, WRC may accept one additional non-
conforming shipment if it arrives within fourteen days of the first 
shipment. The Agency is allowing the facility to receive two non-
conforming shipments over a period of 14 days to provide WRC with 
sufficient time to contact the generator and discuss a remedy or 
designate a different waste management alternative. The 14-day period 
allows WRC to receive shipments that may already be in transport at the 
time the facility discovers that the first shipment is not in 
compliance with the metal content condition of the exclusion. After 
this 14-day grace period, WRC may not accept additional materials from 
that generator until WRC determines that the generator's subsequent 
sludge shipments will meet the minimum metal content requirements of 
this variance.
    To ensure that all concentrates covered by this variance are sent 
to smelters rather than to disposal

[[Page 68971]]

facilities, WRC has also agreed to provide to ADEQ an annual audit, 
performed by an independent third party mutually acceptable to WRC and 
ADEQ, to be completed within the six months following the end of each 
calendar year. The scope of the annual audit will cover WRC's 
concentrate shipments during the year to certify that all outgoing 
shipments of concentrate were: (1) Made to metal smelting facilities; 
(2) documented and shipped in accordance with all applicable U.S. 
Department of Transportation regulations; and (3) documented to have 
reached the designated destination.

B. The Value of the Material After It Has Been Partially Reclaimed

    The concentrate produced by WRC has a positive economic market 
value and is purchased by metals smelters. WRC provided sales data to 
the Agency for the period of January 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995 
documenting that the facility sold its partially reclaimed material to 
smelters and received a positive economic value (after taking into 
account average transportation costs).

C. The Degree to Which the Partially Reclaimed Material is Like an 
Analogous Raw Material

    WRC asserts that its partially reclaimed materials are analogous to 
virgin ores used as raw materials by metal smelters. WRC's partially 
reclaimed materials are marketed by WRC as copper, nickel, and tin 
concentrates. Each concentrate contains various mixes of these metals, 
as well as precious metals such as gold, silver, platinum and 
palladium. WRC submitted analytical data to the Agency indicating that 
its concentrates contain recoverable levels of metals and metals 
concentrate at levels higher than the metal content specifications for 
incoming materials for smelters.
    The Agency conducted an analysis comparing the toxic constituents 
in the metals concentrates managed by WRC with the constituents in 
analogous virgin ore concentrates. The Agency found, for the most part, 
that the concentration levels for the toxic constituents found in the 
WRC concentrates are comparable to the concentrations of toxic 
constituents typically found in virgin metal concentrates. The 
exception is cyanide. Metals concentrates reclaimed by WRC have higher 
concentrations of cyanide than typically found in virgin ore 
concentrates.
    As a result of its comparative analysis of the toxic constituents 
in WRC concentrate materials and virgin metal concentrates, as well as 
the results of a ground water risk screening analysis conducted by the 
Agency (and explained below), the Agency is proposing to set a limit on 
the level of cyanide in WRC metals concentrate as a condition of the 
variance. The Agency is proposing to condition its proposed grant of 
the variance on the requirement that the level of cyanide in WRC's 
metal concentrate (produced at the Phoenix facility) is below the best 
demonstrated available technology (BDAT) treatment standards for 
cyanide at 40 CFR 268.40 (i.e., 590 ppm cyanide.) For a more detailed 
discussion of the proposed cyanide limit, see Section E. below.

D. The Extent to Which an End Market for the Partially Reclaimed 
Material is Guaranteed

    The concentrate produced by WRC appears to have a stable long-term 
market. WRC has multi-year contracts for the sale of its reclaimed 
materials with at least four smelters. Additional market information 
provided by WRC indicates that its purchasers have additional excess 
smelting capacity that exceeds WRC's production capabilities.

E. The Extent to Which the Partially Reclaimed Material is Handled to 
Minimize Loss

    Operations at WRC's Phoenix facility are governed by the CA/CO 
described in section I.B.2 of this document, and will be covered by a 
RCRA Part B treatment and storage permit. Incoming material is 
accompanied by a hazardous waste manifest, and all processing is 
performed on a concrete pad, with a compacted native soil and flexible 
membrane liner beneath the pad. Treatment and storage activities prior 
to shipment off-site are subject to all applicable 40 CFR Part 265 
standards, including general facility standards, preparedness and 
prevention, groundwater protection and monitoring, closure and post-
closure requirements, and financial responsibility.
    The partially reclaimed materials produced by WRC's Phoenix 
facility are shipped to smelters by either highway or rail. The 
Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations specify that the 
materials must be classified and handled as a hazardous material due to 
the fact that the materials contain nickel hydroxide. Shipments of 
materials classified by DOT as hazardous materials are subject to the 
marking, labeling, and shipping requirements of 49 CFR part 172, 
including the requirement that the materials must be accompanied by a 
shipping paper, or bill of lading, completed in accordance with Subpart 
C of 49 CFR part 172. Copies of these papers must be retained by the 
shipper and carrier for a period of one year.
    WRC has demonstrated that its partially reclaimed metal-bearing 
sludges are managed in a way that is designed to prevent loss, both at 
the Phoenix facility and at the smelters. WRC also points out that the 
company enters into recycling agreements with the generators from whom 
WRC receives F006 sludge (as well as other metal-bearing sludges). 
These agreements obligate WRC to recycle all of the wastes and to 
annually certify to the generators that all shipments of the waste are 
accepted and recycled. Therefore, WRC has the incentive to handle all 
incoming wastes in a manner that prevents releases or losses to the 
environment. WRC also points out that the value of its recycled 
material represents a significant investment by WRC that can only be 
recovered by delivering the reclaimed material to smelters in 
accordance with its sales contracts.
    EPA agrees that the economic value of the partially reclaimed 
material produced by WRC and the facility's contractual relationships 
with smelters provide sufficient incentives for WRC to prevent releases 
to the environment. In addition, the Agency notes that granting this 
variance may produce environmental benefits by increasing the volume of 
F006 that is recycled, thus reducing copper and nickel mining which 
have caused environmental concerns in the past.
    However, to address all concerns about safe handling of WRC 
concentrate, the Agency is proposing to condition the grant of the 
variance on the requirement that WRC include a provision in its 
contractual agreements with metal smelting facilities that smelters 
receiving partially reclaimed materials from WRC do not store the 
materials on the land. In this manner, metal concentrates produced by 
WRC from listed hazardous wastes and transported to smelting facilities 
will be precluded from land storage. In addition, EPA is proposing to 
condition the grant of the variance on the requirement that WRC send a 
one-time notification of the variance and its conditions to any 
countries where metal smelters accepting WRC concentrate are located.
    To evaluate the potential for releases of cyanide from the 
partially reclaimed material stored at smelters, the Agency conducted a 
ground water risk screening analysis to assess the risk levels 
associated with potential releases of cyanide from electroplating 
sludges. To accomplish this analysis, EPA conducted a risk screening 
that modeled total cyanide concentrations of 590

[[Page 68972]]

ppm, the current treatment standard for F006 under the land disposal 
restriction program (40 CFR 268.40.) The purpose of EPA's risk 
screening analysis for cyanide in electroplating sludge was to 
determine whether or not the concentration of cyanide in the ground 
water at a receptor well down gradient of a waste pile of 
electroplating sludge will exceed the Federal Drinking Water Standard 
limit of 0.20 mg/L. The risk screening analysis was performed using 
EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration and with Transformation 
Products (EPACMTP, EPA 1997, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c).
    The approach used by the Agency in the risk screening analysis 
assumed two waste management scenarios representing a median or central 
tendency risk level scenario and a high-end risk scenario. The 
``central tendency'' risk level scenario included a waste pile directly 
on the ground with a total area of 465.40 square meters and located 430 
meters from the nearest drinking water well. The ``high end value'' 
risk level scenario simulated a waste pile having a total area of 
18,575.7 square meters and located 102 meters from the nearest drinking 
water well. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Ground Water Risk Screening Analysis for Cyanide in 
Electroplating Sludge Managed in Waste Piles,'' HydroGeoLogic Inc., 
June 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the model simulations for both scenarios indicated 
that concentrations of cyanide in the ground water do not exceed the 
maximum Federal Drinking Water Standard of 0.20 mg/L. The maximum 
receptor well concentration for the central tendency scenario was zero 
and that of the high-end scenario was 0.0175 mg/L. The most important 
parameter responsible for the low concentrations of cyanide in these 
results is the assumed rapid hydrolysis rate of cyanide, 
8.4y-1. This rate corresponds to a half-life of 
approximately 30 days. The model results predict that the cyanide will 
have been completely transformed before it reaches the receptor in the 
central tendency scenario. In the high-end case, the ground water 
travel time is sufficiently short that cyanide reaches the well, 
although the maximum concentration is below the drinking water 
standard. If these results are compared to corresponding scenarios that 
assume no hydrolysis, the maximum receptor well concentration for the 
central tendency is 0.07 mg/L and the maximum receptor well 
concentration for the high-end scenario is 17.79 mg/L.2 In 
the case of no hydrolysis, the predicted concentration of cyanide in 
ground water exceeds the Federal Drinking Water Standard by a multiple 
of 0.35 under the central tendency scenario and by a multiple of 88.45 
under the high-end scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Model runs were made with and without the hydrolysis rate to 
isolate the impact of storage time duration from the overwhelming 
effect of hydrolysis rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given these results, the Agency has determined that it is important 
to establish a limit on the level of cyanide in the partially reclaimed 
materials produced and sold by WRC. The Agency has decided to establish 
this limit at 590 ppm cyanide, which was used as the model cyanide 
concentration in its risk screening analysis. This level is the limit 
established as the BDAT treatment standard limit under the Land 
Disposal Restrictions Program. WRC claims that its partially reclaimed 
product does not exceed a cyanide concentration limit of 590 ppm. The 
Agency points out that if the partially reclaimed material should 
exceed the established concentration limit for cyanide and the facility 
must treat the material to reduce the cyanide concentration, the 
material would no longer qualify for this variance. Under such 
circumstances, the material is substantially ``waste-like.'' In 
addition, the facility would have to manage the material as a RCRA 
hazardous waste and comply with all applicable hazardous waste 
management requirements (e.g. storage, transportation, and land 
disposal restriction (LDR) requirements)).

IV. Summary of the Agency's Proposed Decision

    The Agency is proposing to conditionally grant the petitioner's 
(WRC's) request for a variance from classification as solid waste for 
the metal concentrate partially reclaimed from materials listed as 
hazardous waste F006 and F019 received at its Arizona facility, which 
are sold to metal smelters or other metal recovery facilities after 
being partially reclaimed by WRC. The Agency is proposing to grant this 
variance for a time period of five years, subject to the following 
conditions:
    (1) Metal-bearing sludges F006 and F019 accepted by the facility 
from off-site and used in the production of the partially reclaimed 
concentrate materials must have a metals concentration level of no less 
than two percent on a dry weight basis, or an equivalent economic value 
in precious metals (e.g., gold, silver, platinum, or palladium). In 
addition, the facility may only process two shipments of listed sludge 
materials that do not meet the two percent metals concentration level 
from a single generator within a 14-day time period before taking 
action to ensure that subsequent shipments will meet the minimum metal 
content. Specifically, WRC may not accept more than one non-conforming 
shipment from a generator, unless the second non-conforming shipment is 
received within 14 days following the first event. Thereafter, WRC may 
not accept additional materials from that generator until WRC 
determines that the generator's subsequent sludge shipments will meet 
the minimum metal content requirements of this condition.
    (2) WRC shall provide to ADEQ an annual audit, performed by an 
independent third party mutually acceptable to WRC and ADEQ, to be 
completed within the six months following the end of each calendar 
year. The scope of the annual audit will cover WRC's concentrate 
shipments during the year to certify that all shipments were: (1) Made 
to metal smelting facilities; (2) documented and shipped in accordance 
with all applicable U.S. Department of Transportation regulations; and 
(3) documented to have reached the designated destination.
    (3) The partially reclaimed concentrate materials must have a 
cyanide concentration of no greater than 590 ppm and may not be placed 
on the land at metal smelting facilities. To ensure compliance with 
this condition, WRC must place a provision stipulating no land 
placement of the materials in its contractual agreements with smelting 
facilities.
    (4) WRC must send a one-time notification of the variance and its 
conditions to any country where metal smelters accepting WRC 
concentrate are located. In addition, WRC must include on its Material 
Safety Data Sheet shipped with the concentrate a notification that the 
concentrate may contain up to 590 ppm cyanide and that low pH 
environments can result in the production of hydrogen cyanide gas.
    The Agency reiterates that this proposed conditional variance from 
classification as solid waste for the metal concentrate reclaimed from 
listed hazardous wastes F006 and F019 at WRC's Phoenix, Arizona 
facility does not affect the regulatory status of any other hazardous 
wastes handled by WRC at the Phoenix facility. In addition, the 
proposed variance does not apply to or affect the regulatory status of 
any wastes managed at any other WRC facility.

V. Request for Comments

    The Agency will accept and consider comments on this proposed 
decision until the date shown at the beginning of this notice. After 
EPA reviews and considers any public comments received on the proposed 
decision, the

[[Page 68973]]

Agency will publish a final decision in response to the petition.

VI. Effect of Variance in Arizona

    EPA notes that Arizona is authorized to administer and enforce the 
RCRA hazardous waste program pursuant to section 3006 of RCRA. 
Generally, when EPA grants a variance under 40 CFR 260.30, the variance 
would be automatically effective only in unauthorized States. However, 
there are two circumstances that make this variance effective in the 
State of Arizona. First, WRC, EPA Region IX and the Arizona Department 
of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) executed a Consent Agreement and 
Consent Order (CA/CO) that finalized regulatory requirements for the 
WRC recycling facility at Phoenix. Under the CA/CO, if EPA makes a 
favorable decision regarding WRC's petition for a variance, Arizona is 
obligated to ``honor and give legal effect to the variance 
determination within the State of Arizona.'' Second, Arizona's 
regulations at A.A.C. R18-8-260(J) (Supp. 98-2) (which incorporates and 
modifies 40 CFR 260.30 entitled ``Variances from classification as a 
solid waste'') provides that ``any person wishing to submit a variance 
petition shall submit the petition, under this subsection, to EPA. 
Where the Administrator of EPA has granted a variance from 
classification as a solid waste under 40 CFR 260.30, 260.31, and 
260.33, the Director shall accept the determination, provided the 
Director determines that the action is consistent with the policies and 
purposes of the HWMA'' (the Hazardous Waste Management Act underlying 
Arizona's authorized status). Since the Director has made such a 
determination, no further action will be necessary before the variance 
takes effect under state law upon promulgation by EPA.

VII. Administrative Requirements:

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a rule of general applicability and therefore is not a 
``regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. Because this action is a rule of particular applicability 
relating to a facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility 
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or 
to sections 202, 204 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because the rule will affect only one 
facility, it will not significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, as specified in section 203 of UMRA, or communities of 
tribal governments, as specified in Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, 
May 10, 1998). For the same reason, this rule will not have substantial 
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule also 
is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 
because it is not economically significant.
    This rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the 
requirements of section 12(c) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required 
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), 
in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate 
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and 
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied 
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining 
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order. 
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.).

    Dated: December 3, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-31965 Filed 12-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U