[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43823-43831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-21045]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW-FRL-7034-2]


Hazardous Waste Management System; Proposed Exclusion for 
Identifying and Listing Hazardous Waste

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ``the Agency'' or ``we'' in this preamble) is 
proposing to grant a petition submitted by Ormet Primary Aluminum 
Corporation (Ormet) to exclude (or ``delist'') vitrified spent potliner 
(generated from primary aluminum production) at Ormet's Hannibal, Ohio 
plant from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in subpart D of part 
261.
    The Agency has evaluated the waste-specific information provided by 
Ormet and has tentatively decided to grant the exclusion based on our 
conclusion that Ormet's vitrified spent potliner (VSP) is nonhazardous. 
This proposed decision, if finalized, conditionally excludes the 
petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations 
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

DATES: Comments. We will accept public comments on this proposed 
decision until October 5, 2001. We will stamp comments postmarked after 
the close of the comment period as ``late.'' These ``late'' comments 
may not be considered in formulating a final decision.
    Request for Public Hearing. Your request for a hearing must reach 
EPA by September 5, 2001. The request must contain the information 
prescribed in Sec. 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Comments. Please send two copies of your comments to Todd 
Ramaly, Waste Management Branch (DW-8J), Environmental Protection 
Agency, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.

[[Page 43824]]

    Request for Public Hearing. Any person may request a hearing on 
this proposed decision by filing a request with Robert Springer, 
Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division (D-8J), Environmental 
Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning 
this notice, contact Todd Ramaly at the address above or at (312) 353-
9317. 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 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding federal holidays. Call Todd Ramaly at (312) 353-9317 for 
appointments. The public may copy material from the regulatory docket 
at $0.15 per page.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview Information
    A. What action is EPA proposing?
    B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this delisting?
    C. How will Ormet manage the waste if it is delisted?
    D. When would EPA finalize the proposed delisting exclusion?
    E. How would this action affect States?
II. Background
    A. What is the history of the delisting program?
    B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a 
petitioner?
    C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a 
delisting petition?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
    A. What waste did Ormet petition EPA to delist?
    B. What information and analyses did Ormet submit to support 
this petition?
    C. How is the petitioned waste generated?
    D. How did Ormet sample and analyze the data in this petition?
    E. What were the results of Ormet's analysis?
    F. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
    G. What other factors did EPA consider in evaluating this waste?
    H. What did EPA conclude about Ormet's analysis?
I. What is EPA's final evaluation of this delisting petition?
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
    A. What are the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous 
constituents in the waste?
    B. How frequently must Ormet test the waste?
    C. What must Ormet do if the process changes?
    D. What data must Ormet submit?
    E. What happens if Ormet's waste fails to meet the conditions of 
the exclusion?
V. Regulatory Impact
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
IX. Executive Order 13045
X. Executive Order 13175
XI. National Technology Transfer And Advancement Act
XII. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

I. Overview Information

A. What Action Is EPA Proposing?

    The EPA is proposing to grant Ormet's petition to have vitrified 
spent potliner from the primary reduction of aluminum at Ormet's 
Hannibal, Ohio plant, excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a 
hazardous waste. We evaluated the petition using a fate and transport 
model to predict the concentration of hazardous constituents which 
could be released from the petitioned waste after it is disposed.

B. Why Is EPA Proposing To Approve This Delisting?

    Ormet petitioned EPA to exclude, or delist, the VSP because Ormet 
believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the RCRA criteria for 
which EPA originally listed the waste and believes there are no 
additional constituents or factors which could cause the waste to be 
hazardous.
    We evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and 
factors cited in Sec. 261.11(a)(2) and (3). We also considered the 
original listing criteria and any additional factors which could cause 
the waste to be hazardous, as required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste 
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), 
and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(2)-(4).
    These factors included: (1) Whether the waste is considered acutely 
toxic; (2) the toxicity of the constituents; (3) the concentration of 
the constituents in the waste; (4) the tendency of the hazardous 
constituents to migrate and to bioaccumulate; (5) persistence of 
hazardous constituents in the environment once released from the waste; 
(6) plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned waste; 
(7) the quantity of waste produced; and (8) waste variability.
    Based on our review of the analytical data and other submitted 
information we agree with the petitioner that the waste is nonhazardous 
with respect to the original listing criteria and that there are no 
additional factors which could cause the waste to be hazardous. If our 
review had found that the waste remained hazardous, we would have 
proposed to deny the petition. We have therefore concluded that the 
waste should be delisted.

C. How Will Ormet Manage the Waste If It Is Delisted?

    If the petitioned waste is delisted, Ormet must dispose of it in a 
Subtitle D landfill licensed or permitted by a State to manage 
industrial waste. Ormet may also dispose of the delisted waste in a 
permitted Subtitle C landfill.

D. When Would EPA Finalize the Proposed Delisting Exclusion?

    HSWA specifically requires the EPA to provide notice and an 
opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final exclusion. 
Thus, EPA will not make a final decision or grant an exclusion until it 
has considered and addressed all timely public comments (including any 
at public hearings) on today's proposal.
    Since this rule would reduce the existing requirements for a person 
generating hazardous wastes, the regulated community does not need a 
six-month period to come into compliance in accordance with section 
3010 of RCRA as amended by HSWA. Therefore, the exclusion would become 
effective upon finalization.

E. How Would This Action Affect the States?

    Because EPA is issuing today's exclusion under the federal RCRA 
delisting program, only states subject to federal RCRA delisting 
provisions would be affected. This exclusion may not be effective in 
states having a dual system that includes federal RCRA requirements and 
their own requirements, or in states which have received our 
authorization to make their own delisting decisions.
    EPA allows states to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory 
requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of 
RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that 
prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the state. 
Because a dual system (that is, both federal (RCRA) and state (non-
RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's waste, we urge the 
petitioner to contact the state regulatory authority to establish the 
status of its waste under the state law.
    EPA has also authorized some states to administer a delisting 
program in place of the federal program. That is, to make state 
delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those 
authorized states. If Ormet transports the petitioned waste to or 
manages the waste in any state with delisting authorization, Ormet must 
obtain a delisting from that state before it can manage the waste as 
nonhazardous in the state.

[[Page 43825]]

II. Background

A. What Is the History of the Delisting Program?

    The EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from 
nonspecific and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its 
final and interim final regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA. 
The EPA has amended this list several times and published it in 40 CFR 
261.31 and 261.32.
    We list these wastes as hazardous because: (1) they typically and 
frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous 
wastes identified in subpart C of part 261 (that is, ignitability, 
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or (2) they meet the criteria 
for listing contained in Secs. 261.11(a)(2) or (3).
    Individual waste streams may vary depending on raw materials, 
industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste described 
in these regulations generally is hazardous, a specific waste from an 
individual facility that meets the listing description may not be 
hazardous.
    For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion 
procedure, called delisting, which allows a person to demonstrate that 
EPA should not regulate a specific waste from a particular generating 
facility as a hazardous waste.

B. What Is a Delisting Petition, and What Does It Require of a 
Petitioner?

    A delisting petition is a request from a facility to EPA or an 
authorized state to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes. 
In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that the waste 
generated at a particular facility does not meet any of the criteria 
for listed wastes. The criteria for which EPA lists a waste are in 40 
CFR 261.11 and in the background documents for the listed wastes.
    In addition, a petitioner must demonstrate that the waste does not 
exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics and must present 
sufficient information for us to decide whether factors other than 
those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a 
hazardous waste. (See Sec. 260.22, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f) and the background 
documents for a listed waste.)
    A generator remains obligated under RCRA to confirm that its waste 
remains nonhazardous.

C. What Factors Must EPA Consider in Deciding Whether To Grant a 
Delisting Petition?

    EPA must consider any factors (including additional constituents) 
other than those for which we listed the waste if these additional 
factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. (See HSWA of 1984.) EPA 
must also consider as a hazardous waste, mixtures containing listed 
hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treatment of listed hazardous 
waste. See 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i), called the ``mixture'' 
and ``derived-from'' rules, respectively. These wastes are also 
eligible for exclusion but remain hazardous wastes until excluded.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data

A. What Wastes Did Ormet Petition EPA to Delist?

    Ormet submitted an ``upfront'' petition in April 1994 to exclude 
vitrified spent potliner, K088, generated at its Hannibal Ohio plant, 
from the list of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.32. K088 is 
defined as ``spent potliner from the primary reduction of aluminum.'' 
In December 1999 Ormet submitted a revised petition for an annual 
volume of 8,500 cubic yards of K088 generated under full scale 
operation. The EPA reviews a petitioner's estimated volume and, on 
occasion, has requested a petitioner to re-evaluate the estimated waste 
generation rate. EPA accepts Ormet's estimate of annual volume of 
waste.

B. What Information and Analyses Did Ormet Submit To Support This 
Petition?

    To support its petition, Ormet submitted (1) descriptions and 
schematic diagrams of the aluminum reduction process generating the 
K088 and the vitrification system used to treat the K088; (2) analyses 
for total and TCLP metals, total and TCLP volatile and semivolatile 
organics, total cyanide, total and TCLP fluoride, total sulfides, total 
dioxins and furans, oil and grease; pH, and reactivity; (3) analyses 
for leachable metals, cyanide, and fluoride, using the TCLP procedure 
with neutral and basic extraction fluids.

C. How Is the Petitioned Waste Generated?

    Aluminum is produced by the reduction of alumina (aluminum oxide) 
in large iron pots. The pot is lined with anthracite coal which serves 
as the cathode. Anodes in the center of the bath are constructed of 
petroleum coke and a pitch binder. The pot is filled with a mixture of 
aluminum oxide, cryolite and aluminum fluoride and a direct current is 
passed from the anode to the cathode. The heat generated by the 
resistance of the solid mixture causes it to melt and at the surface of 
the cathode the molten aluminum oxide is reduced to aluminum. The 
molten aluminum is periodically withdrawn from the bottom of the cell 
and cast into ingots, billets, or pigs.
    In the reducing environment, atmospheric nitrogen reacts with the 
carbon of the potliner to form cyanide within the potliner. Over the 
life of the cathode, the carbon lining of the pot becomes impregnated 
with cryolite, as well as with sodium and fluoride. In addition, the 
potliner may also be contaminated with heavy metals. As the cryolite is 
absorbed into the cathode, the lining of the pot will crack and heave. 
When the lining fails, the molten aluminum can come in contact with the 
iron pot. If this happens, the aluminum will pick up impurities from 
the iron. Upon failure, the potliner must be replaced. The pot is 
removed from service, emptied and cooled, and the spent potliner is 
stripped from the steel shell by mechanical means.
    Spent potliner from primary aluminum reduction is hazardous waste 
K088. This waste was originally listed for complexes of cyanide, 
although Land Disposal Restriction treatment standards 40 CFR 268.40 
for K088 have been established for cyanide, fluoride, heavy metals, and 
PAHs.
    Ormet treats the spent potliner generated at the Hannibal plant in 
an on-site treatment unit. The treatment unit is a natural gas fired 
combustion melting system which vitrifies the spent potliner. The 
glass-like VSP fractures into a cullet or frit upon quenching. The 
State of Ohio currently allows Ormet to recycle the VSP. The system 
also generates a baghouse dust which is mostly sodium fluoride. The 
proposed exclusion is for the glass-like VSP only.

D. How Did Ormet Sample and Analyze the Data in This Petition?

    In April of 1994, Ormet sought an upfront exclusion for the VSP 
based on the results of pilot-scale treatment of the spent potliner. 
Ormet collected and analyzed five composite samples each of untreated 
spent potliner and VSP during the pilot study. All samples were 
analyzed for: total and TCLP metals plus antimony, beryllium, nickel, 
thallium, tin, vanadium, and zinc; total volatile and semivolatile 
organic compounds; total fluoride; total cyanide; reactivity; pH; and 
oil & grease. All untreated spent potliner samples and one sample of 
the vitrified spent potliner were also analyzed by TCLP for 10 VOCs and 
67

[[Page 43826]]

SVOCs. Two samples of vitrified spent potliner were analyzed for 
dioxins and furans.
    Four samples of vitrified spent potliner were collected in August 
1998 after the full-scale operation was established and were analyzed 
for: total antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, 
lead, mercury, nickel, potassium, selenium, silver, sodium, and 
thallium; TCLP arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, 
selenium, and silver; total and TCLP VOCs and SVOCs; total fluoride; 
total and leachable cyanide; reactivity; pH; and oil & grease. One 
sample of vitrified spent potliner collected in August 1998 was 
analyzed for dioxins and furans.
    To demonstrate stability over a range of pH possible in landfill 
leachate, Ormet collected an additional ten samples of VSP in June 1999 
to demonstrate that the treated VSP is stable over a range of pH 
values.
    Ormet demonstrated that the treated VSP is stable over a range of 
pH by using the TCLP procedure but substituting: (1) Deionized water 
and (2) 0.1 normal sodium hydroxide solution for the extraction fluid 
prescribed in the TCLP.
    Eight composite samples of VSP were collected in June 1999 and 
analyzed for total antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, 
chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and thallium; total 
SVOCs, total fluoride; total cyanide. These samples were also analyzed 
for the above metals plus vanadium, zinc, and fluoride by the TCLP, SW 
846 Method 1311, and by the TCLP procedure in which both neutral and an 
alkaline extraction fluids were substituted for the extraction fluid 
specified in Method 1311. Samples were analyzed for TCLP cyanide using 
both neutral and alkaline extraction fluids, and for pH. Five of the 
composite samples were also analyzed for TCLP SVOCs.
    To quantify the total constituent and extraction fluid 
concentrations, Ormet used the following SW-846 Methods: arsenic 6010, 
7060; antimony 6010, 7041; barium 6010; beryllium 6010; cadmium 6010; 
chromium 6010; lead 6010, 7421; mercury 7471 and 7471A; nickel 6010; 
selenium 7740, 7741; silver 6010; thallium 7841; tin 6010; vanadium 
6010; zinc 6010; VOCs 8260, 8260B; SVOCs 8270, 8270B; TCLP SVOCs 8270C; 
cyanide 9010; sulfides 9030; dioxins and furans 8290; pH 9045; and 
reactive cyanide and reactive sulfides Sections 7.3.3.2 and 7.3.4.2 of 
SW-846. From ``Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes'' 
Ormet used methods 340.1 and 340.2 for fluoride, method 418.1 for oil 
and grease, and method 335.2 for leachable cyanide using TCLP procedure 
with deionized water.

E. What Were the Results of Ormet's Analysis?

    Table 1 presents the maximum total and leachate concentrations for 
detected constituents in VSP. The values reported in the table are the 
maximum values detected in any one sample, with the exception of 
chromium. Chromium was detected at levels higher than expected during 
the pilot study. This was attributed to refractory materials within the 
pilot-scale furnace which contained relatively high concentrations of 
chromium. A low-chromium refractory was used in the full-scale furnace 
and the chromium analytical data from the pilot study were not used. 
For inorganic constituents, the maximum reported leachate 
concentrations for metals in the treated VSP were well below the 
health-based levels of concern used in decision-making for delisting. 
No organic constituents were detected except an insignificant 
concentration of 2,3,4,6,7,8 hexachloro-dibenzo furan found in just one 
sample.
    EPA does not generally verify submitted test data before proposing 
delisting decisions. The sworn affidavit submitted with the petition 
binds the petitioner to present truthful and accurate results. Ormet 
submitted a signed Certification of Accuracy and Responsibility 
statement presented in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).

F. How Did EPA Evaluate the Risk of Delisting This Waste?

    For this delisting determination, we identified plausible exposure 
routes (i.e., ground water, surface water, air) for hazardous 
constituents present in the petitioned waste. We used a fate and 
transport model to predict the release of hazardous constituents and to 
evaluate the potential impact of the petitioned waste on human health 
and the environment once it is disposed. We used a Windows based 
software tool, the Delisting Risk Assessment Software Program (DRAS), 
to estimate the potential releases of waste constituents and to predict 
the risk associated with those releases using several EPA models 
including EPA's Composite Model for leachate migration with 
Transformation Products (EPACMTP) fate and transport model for 
groundwater releases. For a detailed description of the DRAS program 
and the EPACMTP model, see 65 FR 58015, September 27, 2000 and 65 FR 
75897, December 5, 2000. The DRAS program is available on the World 
Wide Web at http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/rcra_c/pd-o/dras.htm. A 
technical support document for the DRAS program is available in the 
public docket.
    For constituents which are not detected in the extract but are 
detected as a total concentration, the DRAS model requires that the 
detection level be entered along with the other data. For these 
constituents, the DRAS uses one half of the detection level to 
calculate risk. We believe that it is inappropriate to evaluate 
constituents which are not detected if an appropriate analytical method 
was used.

G. What Other Factors Did EPA Consider in Evaluating This Waste?

    We also considered the applicability of groundwater monitoring data 
during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this case, we 
determined that it would be inappropriate to request groundwater 
monitoring data because the waste is not currently being land disposed. 
Therefore, we did not request ground water monitoring data from Ormet. 
Potential impacts of the petitioned waste via air emission and storm 
water run-off are addressed in the DRAS.

H. What Did EPA Conclude About Ormet's Analysis?

    After reviewing Ormet's petition, the EPA concludes that (1) no 
hazardous constituents are likely to be present above health based 
levels of concern in the VSP generated at Ormet's Hannibal, Ohio Plant; 
and (2) the petitioned waste does not exhibit any of the 
characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. 
See 40 CFR 261.21, 261.22, 261.23, and 261.24, respectively.
    The total cumulative risk posed by the waste is well below the U.S. 
EPA Region 5 Delisting Program's target level of 1  x  10-6. 
The aggregate hazard index for this waste is estimated to be 0.0139, 
which is also well below the target of 1.0.

I. What Is EPA's Final Evaluation of This Delisting Petition?

    We have reviewed the sampling procedures used by Ormet and have 
determined that they satisfy EPA criteria for collecting representative 
samples of the VSP. The descriptions of the hazardous waste treatment 
process and the analytical data, together with the proposed 
verification testing requirements, provide a reasonable basis for EPA 
to grant the exclusion. We believe the data submitted in support of the 
petition show that the waste will not pose a threat when disposed of in 
a Subtitle D landfill. We therefore,

[[Page 43827]]

propose to grant Ormet an exclusion for the VSP generated at Ormet's 
Hannibal, Ohio Plant.
    If we finalize this proposed exclusion, the Agency will no longer 
regulate the petitioned waste under 40 CFR parts 262 through 268 and 
the permitting standards of part 270.

IV. Conditions for Exclusion

A. What Are the Maximum Allowable Concentrations of Hazardous 
Constituents in the Waste?

    Table 1 summarizes maximum allowable concentrations in an extract 
using the DRAS program and the point of exposure (POE) concentrations 
of concern in groundwater. Allowable levels are determined only for 
constituents which were detected in one or more samples. The allowable 
leachate concentrations were derived from either the health-based 
calculation within the DRAS program, from SWDA Maximum Contaminant 
Level Goals (MCLs), treatment technique, or toxicity characteristic 
values, whichever resulted in a lower delisting level. The only 
exception was arsenic.
    The delisting level for arsenic at the target risk level of 1  x  
10-6 is 0.00107 mg/L in a TCLP extract which is well below 
the best detection limit achieved by Ormet. EPA's July 1996 Soil 
Screening Guidance: User's Guide, EPA/540/R-96/018, states that 
acceptable levels of contaminants in soils for the groundwater pathway 
can be derived from MCLs. If the POE target concentration is set at the 
Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), the 
maximum allowable waste leachate concentration would be 1.1 mg/L TCLP 
arsenic. According to EPA's January 2001 Technical Fact Sheet: Final 
Rule for Arsenic in Drinking Water, EPA 815-F-00-015, naturally 
occurring levels of arsenic in public drinking water systems can range 
from .002 to .01 mg/L. Therefore, some allowance has been exercised in 
setting the allowable level for arsenic at a concentration which 
corresponds to a cancer risk of 1  x  10-4. This corresponds 
to a POE concentration of approximately one tenth of the existing MCL. 
Delisting levels for constituents other than arsenic will still be set 
at concentrations corresponding to the original target level of 1  x  
10-6.
    Since the spent potliner is undergoing treatment after generation 
and prior to disposal, the applicable LDR treatment standards for K088 
must also be met before the VSP can be land disposed. Based on the data 
submitted, the vitrified spent potliner does not exceed current LDR 
treatment standards as identified in Table 1. Ormet must comply with 
all future LDR treatment standards promulgated under 40 CFR 268.40 for 
K088.

                          Table 1.--Constituent Concentrations and DRAS Maximum Allowable Leachate and Point of Exposure Levels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Maximum \1\ observed leachate concentration                                       Maximum
                                                                            (mg/L TCLP)                       Maximum         Maximum        allowable
                                            Maximum \1\  ------------------------------------------------    allowable       allowable       point of
               Constituent                observed total                                                     leachate      concentration     exposure
                                           concentration                                                   concentration   based on LDRs   concentration
                                              (mg/kg)         acidic          neutral        alkaline       (mg/L TCLP)    (mg/kg or m/L     (mg/L in
                                                                                                                               TCLP)       groundwater)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony................................              20               2            0.04            0.04          0.2352  1.15 mg/L TCLP          0.0062
Arsenic.................................             5.1               1           0.008           0.008           0.107     5 mg/L TCLP           0.005
                                                                                                                              26.1 mg/kg
Barium..................................         320 0.3  ..............            0.08            0.02          63.5 2    21 mg/L TCLP           2.0 2
Beryllium...............................              15             0.1           0.005           0.005         0.474 2      1.2 2 mg/L         0.004 2
                                                                                                                                    TCLP
Cadmium.................................             0.5             0.1           0.005           0.005          0.1712  0.11 mg/L TCLP          0.0052
Chromium................................             140             0.2            0.04            0.04           1.762   0.6 mg/L TCLP            0.12
Lead....................................              30               1             0.2             0.2              53  0.75 mg/L TCLP          0.0152
Mercury.................................            0.25           0.005           0.005           0.005           0.172      0.025 mg/L          0.0022
                                                                                                                                    TCLP
Nickel..................................             210            0.27            0.08            0.08            32.2    11 mg/L TCLP           0.753
Selenium................................             1.8               1             0.2             0.2          0.6612   5.7 mg/L TCLP           0.052
Silver..................................              12             0.4            0.02            0.02            4.38  0.14 mg/L TCLP           0.187
Thallium................................             0.5            0.05            0.01            0.01            0.12   0.2 mg/L TCLP          0.0022
Tin.....................................               1             0.2              NR              NR             257              NA            22.5
Vanadium................................              74           0.022            0.02            0.02            24.1   1.6 mg/L TCLP            2.63
Zinc....................................             390            0.31            0.04            0.04             320   4.3 mg/L TCLP           11.27
Cyanide.................................              14              NR            0.01            0.01            4.11    NA mg/L TCLP            0.22
                                                                                                                            590 mg/kg 30
                                                                                                                             mg/kg amen.
Fluoride................................          26,100               6             2.6             2.4              NA              NA              NA
Sulfide.................................             450              NR              NR              NR              NA              NA              NA
Acenaphthene............................           0.170              NR              NR              NR              NR       3.4 mg/kg              NA
Anthracene..............................           0.170              NR              NR              NR              NR       3.4 mg/kg              NA
Benz(a)anthracene.......................           0.170              NR              NR              NR              NR       3.4 mg/kg              NA
Benzo(a)pyrene..........................           0.170              NR              NR              NR              NR       3.4 mg/kg              NA
Benzo(b)fluoranthene....................           0.170              NR              NR              NR              NR       6.8 mg/kg              NA

[[Page 43828]]

 
Benzo(k)fluoranthene....................           0.170              NR              NR              NR              NR       6.8 mg/kg              NA
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene....................           0.170              NR              NR              NR              NR       1.8 mg/kg              NA
Chrysene................................           0.170              NR              NR              NR              NR       3.4 mg/kg              NA
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene...................           0.170              NR              NR              NR              NR       8.2 mg/kg              NA
Fluoranthene............................           0.170              NR              NR              NR              NR       3.4 mg/kg              NA
Indeno(1,2,3,-c,d)pyrene................           0.170              NR              NR              NR              NR       3.4 mg/kg              NA
Phenanthrene............................           0.170              NR              NR              NR              NR       5.6 mg/kg              NA
Pyrene..................................           0.170              NR              NR              NR              NR       8.2 mg/kg             NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These levels represent the highest constituent concentration found in any sample and are not necessarily the specific levels found in any one
  sample.
\2\ The concentration is based on the MCL or TT action level.
\3\ The concentration is based on the toxicity characteristic level in 40 CFR 261.24.
NA Not applicable.
NR Analysis not run.

B. How Frequently Must Ormet Test the Waste?

    Ormet must demonstrate on a quarterly basis that the constituents 
of concern in the petitioned waste do not exceed the levels of concern 
in Table 1 above. Ormet must collect two representative samples of the 
treated VSP per month and analyze the samples using: (a) the TCLP 
method, (b) the TCLP procedure with an extraction fluid of 0.1 Normal 
sodium hydroxide solution. Appropriate detection levels and quality 
control procedures are required.

C. What Must Ormet Do If the Process Changes?

    If Ormet significantly changes either the manufacturing process, 
the treatment process, or the chemicals used in the treatment process, 
Ormet must manage wastes generated after the process change as 
hazardous waste until Ormet has received written approval from EPA. 
Ormet may not handle the VSP generated from the new process under this 
exclusion until it has demonstrated to EPA that the waste meets the 
levels set in section IV.A and that no new hazardous constituents 
listed in appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261 have been introduced.

D. What Data Must Ormet Submit?

    Ormet must submit an annual summary of the data obtained through 
monthly verification testing to U.S. EPA Region 5, Waste Management 
Branch (DW-8J), 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, by February 1 
of each year for the prior calendar year. Ormet must compile, 
summarize, and maintain on site for a minimum of five years records of 
operating conditions and analytical data. Ormet must make these records 
available for inspection. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy 
of the certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).

E. What Happens If Ormet Fails To Meet the Conditions of the Exclusion?

    If Ormet violates the terms and conditions established in the 
exclusion, the Agency may start procedures to withdraw the exclusion.
    If the monthly testing of the waste does not meet the delisting 
levels described in section IV.A above, Ormet must notify the Agency 
within ten days. The exclusion will be suspended and the waste managed 
as hazardous until Ormet has received written approval for the 
exclusion from the Agency. Ormet may provide sampling results that 
support the continuation of the delisting exclusion.
    The EPA has the authority under RCRA and the Administrative 
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et seq. (APA), to reopen a 
delisting decision if we receive new information indicating that the 
conditions of this exclusion have been violated, or otherwise not met.

V. Regulatory Impact

    Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of 
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory 
actions.
    The proposal to grant an exclusion, if promulgated, would 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, thus enabling a facility to manage its waste as nonhazardous.
    Because there is no additional impact from today's proposed rule, 
this proposal would not be a significant regulation, and no cost/
benefit assessment is required. The Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) has also exempted this rule from the requirement for OMB review 
under section (6) of Executive Order 12866.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, whenever an 
agency is required to publish a general notice of rule making 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 (that is, small businesses, small 
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). No regulatory 
flexibility analysis is required, however, if the Administrator or 
delegated representative certifies that the rule will not have any 
impact on 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 and would be limited to one 
facility. Accordingly, the Agency certifies 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.

[[Page 43829]]

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Information collection and record-keeping requirements associated 
with this proposed rule have been approved by the OMB under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-511, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2050-
0053.

VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA), 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, EPA must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small 
government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially 
affected small governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in 
the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them 
on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The UMRA generally defines a federal mandate for regulatory 
purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon state, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector.
    The EPA finds that today's delisting decision is deregulatory in 
nature and does not impose any enforceable duty on any state, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector. In addition, the proposed 
delisting decision does not establish any regulatory requirements for 
small governments and so does not require a small government agency 
plan under UMRA section 203.

IX. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 is entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997). This order applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) is 
economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and 
(2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This 
proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this is 
not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by 
Executive Order 12866.

X. Executive Order 13175

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
The effect of this rule would be limited to one facility. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, 
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from 
tribal officials.

XI. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act, the Agency is directed to use voluntary consensus 
standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
    Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (for example, 
materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business 
practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standard bodies. Where EPA does not use available and potentially 
applicable voluntary consensus standards, the Act requires the Agency 
to provide Congress, through the OMB, an explanation of the reasons for 
not using such standards.
    This rule does not establish any new technical standards, and thus 
the Agency has no need to consider the use of voluntary consensus 
standards in developing this final rule.

XII. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
    Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that impose substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law 
unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the 
process of developing the proposed regulation.
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
a substantial direct effect on 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, because it affects only one facility.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA

[[Page 43830]]

specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and 
local officials.

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: August 1, 2001.
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 2 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 2.--Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Facility                   Address and waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *
                  *                  *                  *
Ormet Primary Aluminum              Vitrified spent potliner (VSP),
 Corporation.--Hannibal, Ohio.       K088, that is generated by Ormet
                                     Primary Aluminum Corporation in
                                     Hannibal, Ohio at a maximum annual
                                     rate of 8,500 cubic yards per year
                                     and disposed of in a Subtitle D
                                     landfill, after (insert publication
                                     date of the final rule).
                                    1. Delisting Levels: (A) The
                                     constituent concentrations measured
                                     in any of the extracts specified in
                                     Paragraph (2) may not exceed the
                                     following levels (mg/L): Antimony--
                                     0.235; Arsenic--0.107; Barium--
                                     63.5; Beryllium--0.474; Cadmium--
                                     0.171; Chromium (total)--1.76;
                                     Lead--5; Mercury--0.17; Nickel--
                                     32.2; Selenium--0.661; Silver--
                                     4.38; Thallium--0.1; Tin--257;
                                     Vanadium--24.1; Zinc--320; Cyanide--
                                     4.11. (B) LDR treatment standards
                                     for K088 must also be met before
                                     the VSP can be land disposed. Ormet
                                     must comply with any future LDR
                                     treatment standards promulgated
                                     under 40 CFR 268.40 for K088.
                                    2. Verification Testing: (A) On a
                                     quarterly basis, Ormet must analyze
                                     two samples of the waste using (a)
                                     the TCLP method, and (b) the TCLP
                                     procedure with an extraction fluid
                                     of 0.1 Normal sodium hydroxide
                                     solution. The constituent
                                     concentrations measured must be
                                     less than the delisting levels
                                     established in Paragraph (1). Ormet
                                     must also comply with LDR treatment
                                     standards in accordance with 40 CFR
                                     268.40. (B) If the quarterly
                                     testing of the waste does not meet
                                     the delisting levels set forth in
                                     paragraph (1), Ormet must notify
                                     the Agency in writing in accordance
                                     with Paragraph (5). The exclusion
                                     will be suspended and the waste
                                     managed as hazardous until Ormet
                                     has received written approval for
                                     the exclusion from the Agency.
                                     Ormet may provide sampling results
                                     that support the continuation of
                                     the delisting exclusion.
                                    3. Changes in Operating Conditions:
                                     If Ormet significantly changes the
                                     manufacturing process or chemicals
                                     used in the manufacturing process
                                     or significantly changes the
                                     treatment process or the chemicals
                                     used in the treatment process,
                                     Ormet must notify the EPA of the
                                     changes in writing. Ormet must
                                     handle wastes generated after the
                                     process change as hazardous until
                                     Ormet has demonstrated that the
                                     wastes continue to meet the
                                     delisting levels set forth in
                                     Paragraph (1) and that no new
                                     hazardous constituents listed in
                                     Appendix VIII of Part 261 have been
                                     introduced and Ormet has received
                                     written approval from EPA.
                                    4. Data Submittals: Ormet must
                                     submit the data obtained through
                                     monthly verification testing or as
                                     required by other conditions of
                                     this rule to U.S. EPA Region 5,
                                     Waste Management Branch (DW-8J), 77
                                     W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604
                                     by February 1 of each calendar year
                                     for the prior calendar year. Ormet
                                     must compile, summarize, and
                                     maintain on site for a minimum of
                                     five years records of operating
                                     conditions and analytical data.
                                     Ormet must make these records
                                     available for inspection. All data
                                     must be accompanied by a signed
                                     copy of the certification statement
                                     in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).
                                    5. Reopener Language--(a) If,
                                     anytime after disposal of the
                                     delisted waste, Ormet possesses or
                                     is otherwise made aware of any data
                                     (including but not limited to
                                     leachate data or groundwater
                                     monitoring data) indicating that
                                     any constituent identified in
                                     Paragraph (1) is at a level in the
                                     leachate higher than the delisting
                                     level established in Paragraph (1),
                                     or is at a level in the groundwater
                                     higher than the point of exposure
                                     groundwater levels referenced by
                                     the model, then Ormet 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 (5)(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 43831]]

 
                                    (c) If the Regional Administrator
                                     determines that the reported
                                     information does require Agency
                                     action, the Regional Administrator
                                     will notify Ormet 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 Ormet
                                     with an opportunity to present
                                     information as to why the proposed
                                     Agency action is not necessary or
                                     to suggest an alternative action.
                                     Ormet shall have 30 days from the
                                     date of the Regional
                                     Administrator's notice to present
                                     the information.
                                    (d) If after 30 days Ormet presents
                                     no further information, 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. 01-21045 Filed 8-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P