10004 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirement.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: February 5, 1997.

William Rice,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–5422 Filed 3–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 268

[FRL–5699–3]

RIN 2050 AE05

Land Disposal Restrictions—Phase IV:

Treatment Standards for Characteristic

Metal Wastes; Notice of Data

Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability.

SUMMARY: EPA has received additional

information on an issue it first raised in

the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)

Phase III proposed rule (60 FR 11702,

March 2, 1995), that of whether the

addition of iron filings (and iron dust)

to lead-contaminated spent foundry

sand is a means of diluting the waste

impermissibly rather than treating it to

conform with the requirements of the

LDR rules. The new information being

noticed today addresses whether this

practice stabilizes (or otherwise treats)

lead, the chief hazardous constituent

found in the spent sand, so that the lead

will not migrate through the

environment when the spent sand is

land disposed. Stabilization as a

technology-based LDR standard

(STABL) is described in 40 CFR 268.42

as using the following reagents (or waste

reagents) or combinations of reagents:

(1) Portland cement; or (2) lime/

pozzolans (e.g., fly ash and cement kiln

dust)—this does not preclude the

addition of reagents (e.g., iron salts,

silicates, and clays) designed to enhance

the set/cure time and/or compressive

strength, or to overall reduce the

leachability of the metal or inorganic.

New studies have been performed to

evaluate this hazardous waste

management practice, and the studies

have undergone external Peer Review.

EPA is noticing these studies, and the

results of the Peer Review, in this

Notice, and soliciting public comment.

EPA may use the results of the studies

to promulgate a revised final approach

on this waste management practice in

an upcoming LDR rulemaking (Phase

IV).

The public has 30 days from

publication of this notice to comment

on the results of the studies and the Peer

Review. This notice does not reopen for

comment any other Phase III or Phase IV

issue; only comments about the waste

management practice of adding iron

filings or dust to lead-contaminated

spent foundry sand will be considered

by the Agency.

DATES: Comments are due by April 4,

1997.

ADDRESSES: To submit comments, the

public must send an original and two

copies to Docket Number F–97–PH3A–

FFFFF, located at the RCRA Docket. The

mailing address is: RCRA Information

Center, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (5305W), 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460. RCRA

Information Center is located at 1235

Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor,

Arlington, Virginia. The RCRA

Information Center is open for public

inspection and copying of supporting

information for RCRA rules from 9:00

a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through

Friday, except for Federal holidays. The

public must make an appointment to

review docket materials by calling (703)

603–9230. The public may copy a

maximum of 100 pages from any

regulatory document at no cost.

Additional copies cost $0.15 per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information or to order paper

copies of this Federal Register

document, call the RCRA Hotline.

Callers within the Washington

Metropolitan Area must dial 703–412–

9810 or TDD 703–412–3323 (hearing

impaired). Long-distance callers may

call 1–800–424–9346 or TDD 1–800–

553–7672. The RCRA Hotline is open

Monday-Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,

Eastern Standard Time. For other

information on this notice, contact Mary

Cunningham at (703) 308–8453, John

Austin at (703) 308–0436 or Rhonda

Craig at (703) 308–8771, Office of Solid

Waste, Mail Code 5302W, 401 M Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperless Office Effort

EPA is asking prospective

commenters to voluntarily submit one

additional copy of their comments on

labeled personal computer diskettes in

ASCII (TEXT) format or a word

processing format that can be converted

to ASCII (TEXT). It is essential to

specify on the disk label the word

processing software and version/edition

as well as the commenter’s name. This

will allow EPA to convert the comments

into one of the word processing formats

utilized by the Agency. Please use

mailing envelopes designed to

physically protect the submitted

diskettes. EPA emphasizes that

submission of comments on diskettes is

not mandatory, nor will it result in any

advantage or disadvantage to any

commenter. This expedited procedure is

in conjunction with the Agency

‘‘Paperless Office’’ campaign. For

further information on the submission

of diskettes, contact Rhonda Craig of the

Waste Treatment Branch at (703) 308–

8771.

This Federal Register notice is

available on the Internet System through

EPA Public Access Server,

www.epa.gov. For the text of the notice,

choose: Rules, Regulations, and

Legislation; FR-Waste; Year/Month/Day.

Notice of Data Availability

I. Overview

On March 2, 1995, EPA published the

LDR Phase III proposal in the Federal

Register (60 FR 11702). Among other

things, EPA proposed that adding iron

filings to lead-contaminated spent

foundry sand constituted impermissible

dilution of hazardous lead waste rather

than treatment to meet the LDR

treatment standards (60 FR 11731). As

explained in the proposed rule, the

addition of iron filings seems to

temporarily retard the leachability of

lead in the spent foundry sand thus

allowing the waste to pass the TCLP

test, but not to be permanently treated.

Comments were mixed on this issue,

and EPA decided not to finalize a

determination that the practice is a form

of impermissible dilution in the Phase

III final rule without studying the issue

further. See 61 FR 15569, April 8, 1996.

Since then, two studies have become

available on this issue. One study was

developed by Dr. John Drexler of the

University of Colorado, and the other by

Dr. Douglas Kendall of the National

Enforcement Investigations Center

(NEIC). The results of these studies

indicate that the addition of iron filings

or iron dust to spent foundry sand does
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 10005

1EPA is mentioning its enforcement activities

here solely to indicate the provenance of the studies

being made available for public comment. EPA is

not seeking to influence the results of any

enforcement actions by doing so. In addition, none

of the Agency staff involved in any pending

enforcement action involving any member of the

foundry industry has any substantive involvement

in the Agency’s rulemaking considering the

question of whether addition of iron to foundry

wastes is a permissible form of treatment.

not constitute adequate treatment of the

waste because high concentrations of

lead remain available to the

environment, and indeed have been

shown to leach in actual field

monitoring of units receiving the spent

foundry wastes. The studies also may

support a more basic principle: a

method of treatment that does not in

fact result in substantial reductions of a

waste’s toxicity or mobility could be

viewed as not adequately minimizing

threats posed by land disposal of the

waste, and therefore, may fail to satisfy

the requirements for permissible

treatment under section 3004(m) of

RCRA. Cf. 62 FR 1994–1995 (Jan. 14,

1997) (EPA discusses similar principle

in connection of treatment of hazardous

waste K088).

EPA requested that these studies be

reviewed by experts from the academic

community who are independent of

EPA. The studies are discussed in

greater detail below.

II. Discussion of the Studies

Spent foundry sand, as generated,

may fail the Toxicity Characteristic

Leaching Procedure (TCLP) for lead, and

would then be considered a

characteristic hazardous waste. At a

brass foundry in Nacogdoches, Texas,

EPA found that hazardous foundry sand

is treated by the addition of iron dust

and iron filings. After this treatment, the

spent foundry sand passed the TCLP

(and thus was no longer considered a

hazardous waste) and was disposed in

the municipal landfill. EPA Region VI

commissioned studies to assess the

effectiveness of this waste management

practice. The studies discuss the

chemistry behind iron treatment and

conclude that the addition of iron to

waste foundry sand does not

permanently prevent the release of lead

into the environment.

The studies were based on samples

collected from two cells at the

Nacogdoches Municipal landfill and

NIBCO, Inc. in Nacogdoches, Texas by

a team from A. T. Kearney (EPA

Contractor) and EPA. The landfill cells

contained waste sands and other wastes

from the NIBCO facility and were

sampled so as to preserve depth

information. Samples taken at the

NIBCO brass foundry included waste

foundry sands, green sand, hydofilter

sludge, baghouse dust, resin sand, and

silica sand. Dr. John W. Drexler of the

University of Colorado performed a

geostatistical evaluation of the

Nacogdoches Landfill data and

photomicrographic analysis of the

samples. Dr. Douglas Kendall with

EPA’s National Enforcement

Investigations Center (NEIC) evaluated

total and leachate analyses performed

by the NEIC laboratory. These studies

and supporting documentation are being

placed in the docket for the Phase IV

rule, and are being made available for

review by today’s notice.1

In his study, Dr. Drexler concluded

the following: (1) That the spent

foundry wastes placed in the

Nacodoches Municipal Landfill

remained hazardous in fact; (2) the

addition of iron filings to spent foundry

sand does not cause chemical reduction

(i.e., the hazardous lead remains

oxidized); (3) the addition of iron filings

to the spent foundry sand promoted a

physicochemical dilution of the sample

during the TCLP by producing

significant increases in surface area

sorption sites; (4) the addition of iron

filings to the waste sand artificially

altered the environmental character of

the TCLP test by increasing pH, and

lowering Eh (redox potential) and DO

(dissolved oxygen); and (5) in-vitro

testing shows that these ‘‘treated’’ spent

foundry sands maintain a high

bioavailability of lead.

In his study, Dr. Kendall concluded

that when metallic iron is mixed with

lead-contaminated foundry sand there is

no reaction, the lead is not entrapped or

immobilized. During the TCLP the

mixture comes in contact with an

aqueous solution and the lead begins to

leach into the solution. If metallic iron

is present, the lead concentration in

solution will be decreased by an

oxidation/reduction reaction to levels

below the lead characteristic level. If

fresh metallic iron is regularly

introduced into the mixture, then

soluble lead can be kept at low levels.

If, however, the mixture is placed in a

landfill and left alone, the iron will

oxidize, thereby losing its ability to

reduce lead ions. The report concludes

that adding iron is not a way to

permanently treat lead-contaminated

waste.

The A.T. Kearney Peer Review Report

includes comments from three

reviewers: Dr. Abinash Agrawal of

Wright State University; Dr. Carl Palmer

of the Oregon Institute of Science and

Technology; and Dr. Geoffrey Thyne of

California State University at

Bakersfield. The peer reviewers were

instructed to review each report to

determine if the reports addressed the

following questions:

1. Does the report support the

conclusion that treatment has not

occurred by adding iron filings to the

foundry sand containing lead?

2. Do the scientific data present in the

report support the conclusions reached?

3. Is the report based on sound

scientific research and fact?

The peer reviewers agree that adding

iron filings to spent foundry sand is not

treatment of hazardous waste

constituents. The Peer Review report

further states that the scientific data

presented in the studies support the

conclusions reached by the studies.

Furthermore, the Peer Review report

finds that the studies are based on

sound scientific research and fact.

The Agency is in the process of

reviewing all the data that were

obtained during the NIBCO

investigation. The Agency is also

continuing to review the comments

submitted to the LDR Phase III proposed

rulemaking which addressed this issue

(59 FR 11731, March 2, 1995). These

studies and data are being analyzed in

order to determine the treatment

validity of adding iron filings to

characteristic metal wastes as a method

of treatment.

The documents being placed in the

docket for this NODA include:

• Phase I, Characterization of Iron

Filings Treatment Method of Foundry

Sands, Dr. John W. Drexler, Associate

Professor, University of Colorado

Laboratory for Environmental and

Geological Studies.

• Impermanence of Iron Treatment of

Lead-Contaminated Foundry Sand,

Douglas Kendall, Ph.D., Senior Chemist,

National Enforcement Investigations

Center (NEIC).

• Peer Review Report, September 3,

1996, submitted by A.T. Kearney, Inc.,

Dallas, Texas to Rena McClurg, Regional

Project Officer, USEPA, Dallas, Texas.

• Fax message to Bret Kendrick from

Dr. Abinash Agrawal RE: Peer Review

for EPA Region 6.

• Reply to Reviewers’ Comments;

Impermanence of Iron Treatment of

Lead-Contaminated Foundry Sand,

Douglas Kendall, Ph.D., Senior Chemist,

National Enforcement Investigations

Center (NEIC).

• Responses to Peer Review

Comments, Characterization of Iron

Filings Treatment Method of Foundry

Sands, Dr. John W. Drexler.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268

Environmental protection, Hazardous

waste, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.
10006 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Dated: February 20, 1997.

Matthew Hale,

Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.

[FR Doc. 97–5419 Filed 3–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 372

[OPPTS–400101; FRL–5584–9]

RIN 2070-AC00

Polymeric Diphenylmethane

Diisocyanate; Toxic Chemical Release

Reporting; Community Right-to-Know

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Denial of petition.

SUMMARY: EPA is denying a petition to

remove polymeric diphenylmethane

diisocyanate (PMDI) from the

diisocyanates category subject to the

reporting requirements under section

313 of the Emergency Planning and

Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986

(EPCRA) and section 6607 of the

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA).

EPA has reviewed the available

toxicological data on this chemical and

has determined that PMDI does not

meet the section 313(d)(3) deletion

criterion. Therefore, EPA is denying the

petitioner’s request to remove PMDI

from the EPCRA section 313

diisocyanates category.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel R. Bushman, Acting Petitions

Coordinator, 202–260–3882, or e-mail:

bushman.daniel@epamail.epa.gov, for

specific information regarding this

document or for more information on

EPCRA section 313, the Emergency

Planning and Community Right-toKnow Hotline, Environmental

Protection Agency, Mail Code 5101, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, Toll

free: 1–800–535–0202, in Virginia and

Alaska: 703–412–9877 or Toll free TDD:

1-800-553-7672.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

A. Statutory Authority

This action is taken under sections

313(d) and (e)(1) of the Emergency

Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act of 1986 (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C.

11023. EPCRA is also referred to as Title

III of the Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)

(Pub. L. 99-499).

B. Background

Section 313 of EPCRA requires certain

facilities manufacturing, processing, or

otherwise using listed toxic chemicals

to report their environmental releases of

such chemicals annually. Beginning

with the 1991 reporting year, such

facilities also must report pollution

prevention and recycling data for such

chemicals, pursuant to section 6607 of

the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990

(PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13106. Section 313

established an initial list of toxic

chemicals that was comprised of more

than 300 chemicals and 20 chemical

categories. Polymeric diphenylmethane

diisocyanate (PMDI) is a diisocyanate

chemical reportable under the

diisocyanates category which was added

to the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic

chemicals on November 30, 1994 (59 FR

61432) (FRL–4922–2). Section 313(d)

authorizes EPA to add or delete

chemicals from the list, and sets forth

criteria for these actions. EPA has added

and deleted chemicals from the original

statutory list. Under section 313(e)(1),

any person may petition EPA to add

chemicals to or delete chemicals from

the list. Pursuant to EPCRA section

313(e)(1), EPA must respond to petitions

within 180 days, either by initiating a

rulemaking or by publishing an

explanation of why the petition is

denied.

EPCRA section 313(d)(2) states that a

chemical may be listed if any of the

listing criteria are met. Therefore, in

order to add a chemical, EPA must

demonstrate that at least one criterion is

met, but does not need to examine

whether all other criteria are also met.

Conversely, in order to remove a

chemical from the list, EPA must

demonstrate that none of the criteria are

met.

EPA issued a statement of petition

policy and guidance in the Federal

Register of February 4, 1987 (52 FR

3479), to provide guidance regarding the

recommended content and format for

submitting petitions. On May 23, 1991

(56 FR 23703), EPA issued guidance

regarding the recommended content of

petitions to delete individual members

of the section 313 metal compound

categories. EPA has also published a

statement clarifying its interpretation of

the section 313(d)(2) and (3) criteria for

adding and deleting chemical

substances from the section 313 list (59

FR 61432).

II. Description of Petition

On August 15, 1995, EPA received a

petition from the Polyurethane Division

of the Society of the Plastics Industry

(SPI) to delete PMDI (Chemical

Abstracts Service Registry Number

(CASRN) 9016–87–9) from the list of

chemicals reportable under EPCRA

section 313 and PPA section 6607.

Specifically, the petitioner requested

that PMDI be removed from the EPCRA

section 313 diisocyanates category. The

petitioner contends that PMDI should be

delisted because: (1) PMDI does not

independently meet the EPCRA section

313 toxicity criteria since it is a mixture

that contains approximately 50 percent

4,4’-methylenediphenylene isocyanate

(MDI), and it is the MDI that dominates

the toxicity of the mixture; (2) PMDI is

not a diisocyanate and does not meet

the molecular weight criterion of the

diisocyanates category that the

petitioner claims was set by EPA; (3)

MDI, which is the constituent of toxic

concern, is listed in the diisocyanates

category and its releases would continue

to be reported by users of PMDI; and (4)

the higher molecular weight oligomers

that make up the other 50 percent of

PMDI have low volatility relative to

other members of the diisocyanates

category which prevents significant

environmental exposures.

Because the petitioner does not

dispute the listing of MDI and

acknowledges that the MDI component

of PMDI is a source of the toxicity of

PMDI, this petition is limited to the

issue of whether the higher molecular

weight oligomers in PMDI can

reasonably be anticipated to add to the

toxicity of PMDI such that PMDI should

be included as a separate chemical in

the diisocyanates category.

III. EPA’s Technical Review of PMDI

A. Introduction

On November 30, 1994 (59 FR 61432),

EPA added the diisocyanates category to

the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic

chemicals based on concerns for chronic

pulmonary toxicity. There are no other

criteria for defining this EPCRA section

313 category. The diisocyanates

category consists of a list of 20

individual diisocyanates, including

PMDI. The reference that the petitioner

makes to a ‘‘molecular weight criteria

set by EPA for the diisocyanates

category’’ refers to the definition EPA

set for the diisocyanates category under

review by EPA’s Office of Pollution

Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) in the

existing chemicals program (Ref. 1). The

OPPT existing chemicals review was

undertaken to determine whether to

regulate diisocyanates under the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA). The

TSCA diisocyanates category was

defined as ‘‘monomeric diisocyanates of

molecular weight less than or equal to

300, plus polymeric diphenylmethane

diisocyanate (which is only 40 to 60

percent polymerized).’’ While EPA

included all members of the TSCA

category in the EPCRA section 313

diisocyanates category, it did not