[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10004-10006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5419]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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

[[Page 10005]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> Impermanence of Iron Treatment of Lead-Contaminated 
Foundry Sand, Douglas Kendall, Ph.D., Senior Chemist, National 
Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC).
    <bullet> Peer Review Report, September 3, 1996, submitted by A.T. 
Kearney, Inc., Dallas, Texas to Rena McClurg, Regional Project Officer, 
USEPA, Dallas, Texas.
    <bullet> Fax message to Bret Kendrick from Dr. Abinash Agrawal RE: 
Peer Review for EPA Region 6.
    <bullet> Reply to Reviewers' Comments; Impermanence of Iron 
Treatment of Lead-Contaminated Foundry Sand, Douglas Kendall, Ph.D., 
Senior Chemist, National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC).
    <bullet> 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.


[[Page 10006]]


    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