18354 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15.

V. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Under the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act, 15

U.S.C. 272 note, EPA must use

voluntary consensus standards to carry

out policy objectives or activities unless

it would be impractical to do so. In this

case, such standards, applicable to this

regulation, do not exist. Accordingly,

the use of such standards is not

required.

VI. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that, before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing the final rule and

other required information to the U.S.

Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the United States prior to

publication of the final rule in the

Federal Register. This proposed rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 8

Environmental protection, Antarctica,

Enforcement, Environmental

documentation, Environmental impact

assessment, Penalties, Prohibited acts.

Dated: April 2, 1998.

Steven A. Herman,

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

[FR Doc. 98–10007 Filed 4–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW–FRL–5996–2]

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for

comment.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is proposing to grant a

petition submitted by Kokoku Steel

Cord Corporation in Scottsburg, Indiana

to exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) certain solid

wastes generated by its wastewater

treatment plant from the lists of

hazardous wastes contained in Title 40

of the Code of Federal Regulations,

Subpart D of Part 261. Since submitting

the petition, Kokoku Steel Cord has

been bought by American Steel Cord, a

division of Michelin North America,

Inc. and the name of the facility has

been changed to American Steel Cord.

American Steel Cord has stated that no

changes have occurred in the raw

material or the processes generating the

waste as described in the original

petition. American Steel Cord has

adopted the petition as its own, and has

certified that all information contained

in the original petition and in

subsequent submittals is true, accurate,

and complete. This action responds to a

‘‘delisting’’ petition submitted under

§ 260.20, which allows any person to

petition the Administrator to modify or

revoke any provision of Parts 260

through 266, 268 and 273, and under

§ 260.22, which specifically provides

generators the opportunity to petition

the Administrator to exclude a waste on

a ‘‘generator-specific’’ basis from the

hazardous waste lists. This proposed

decision is based on an evaluation of

waste-specific information provided by

the petitioner. If this proposed decision

is finalized, the petitioned waste will be

conditionally excluded from the

requirements of the hazardous waste

regulations under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

DATES: EPA is requesting public

comments on this proposed decision.

Comments must be received in writing

by June 1, 1998. Comments postmarked

after the close of the comment period

will be stamped ‘‘late.’’

Any person may request a hearing on

this proposed decision by filing a

request with Norman R. Niedergang,

Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics

Division, at the address below, by May

15, 1998. The request must contain the

information prescribed in § 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Two copies of any

comments should be sent to Judy

Kleiman, Waste Management Branch

(DRP–8J), U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W.

Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.

Requests for a hearing should be

addressed to Norman R. Niedergang,

Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics

Division (D–8J), U.S. EPA Region 5, 77

W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.

The RCRA regulatory docket for this

proposed rule is located at the U.S. EPA

Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,

IL 60604, and is available for viewing

from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday

through Friday, excluding Federal

holidays. Call Judy Kleiman at (312)

886–1482 for appointments. The public

may copy material from the regulatory

docket at $0.15 per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical information concerning this

notice, contact Judy Kleiman at the

address above or at (312) 886–1482.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Authority

On January 16, 1981, as part of its

final and interim final regulations

implementing Section 3001 of RCRA,

EPA published an amended list of

hazardous wastes from non-specific and

specific sources. This list has been

amended several times, and is

published in §§ 261.31 and 261.32.

These wastes are listed as hazardous

because they typically and frequently

exhibit one or more of the

characteristics of hazardous wastes

identified in Subpart C of Part 261 (i.e.,

ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and

toxicity) or meet the criteria for listing

contained in § 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3).

Individual waste streams may vary,

however, depending on raw materials,

industrial processes, and other factors.

Thus, while a waste that is described in

these regulations generally is hazardous,

a specific waste from an individual

facility meeting the listing description

may not be. For this reason, §§ 260.20

and 260.22 provide an exclusion

procedure, allowing a person to

demonstrate that a specific waste from

a particular generating facility should

not be regulated as a hazardous waste.

To have its waste excluded, a

petitioner must show that the waste

generated at the facility does not meet

any of the criteria for which the waste

was listed. See § 260.22(a)(1) and the

background documents for the listed

wastes. In addition, the Hazardous and

Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of

1984 require EPA to consider any
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules 18355

factors (including additional

constituents) other than those for which

the waste was listed, if there is a

reasonable basis to believe that such

additional factors could cause the waste

to be hazardous. See § 260.22(a)(2).

Accordingly, a petitioner also must

demonstrate that the waste does not

exhibit any of the hazardous waste

characteristics (i.e., ignitability,

corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity), and

must present sufficient information for

EPA to determine whether the waste

contains any other constituents at

hazardous levels. Although a waste

which is ‘‘delisted’’ (i.e., excluded) has

been evaluated to determine whether or

not it exhibits any of the characteristics

of hazardous waste, a generator remains

obligated under RCRA to determine

whether or not its waste remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste

characteristics.

In addition, residues from the

treatment, storage, or disposal of listed

hazardous wastes and mixtures

containing listed hazardous wastes are

also considered hazardous wastes. See

§ 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(I), referred to

as the ‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derived-from’’

rules, respectively. Such wastes are also

eligible for exclusion and remain

hazardous wastes until excluded. On

December 6, 1991, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

vacated the ‘‘mixture/derived from’’

rules and remanded them to EPA on

procedural grounds. Shell Oil Co. v.

EPA, 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1991). On

March 3, 1992, EPA reinstated the

mixture and derived-from rules, and

solicited comments on other ways to

regulate waste mixtures and residues

(57 FR 7628). EPA plans to address

issues related to waste mixtures and

residues in a future rulemaking.

B. Approach Used to Evaluate This

Petition

American Steel Cord’s petition

requests a delisting for a listed

hazardous waste. In making the initial

delisting determination, EPA evaluated

the petitioned waste against the listing

criteria and factors cited in § 261.11(a).

Based on this review, EPA tentatively

agreed with the petitioner, pending

public comment, that the waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original

listing criteria. If EPA had found, based

on this review, that the waste remained

hazardous based on the factors for

which the waste was originally listed,

EPA would have proposed to deny the

petition.

EPA then evaluated the waste with

respect to other factors or criteria to

assess whether there is a reasonable

basis to believe that other factors could

cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA

considered whether the waste is acutely

toxic, and considered the concentration

of the constituents in the waste, the

toxicity of the constituents, their

tendency to migrate and to

bioaccumulate, their persistence in the

environment once released from the

waste, plausible and specific types of

management of the petitioned waste, the

quantities of waste generated, and waste

variability.

For this delisting determination, EPA

used the gathered information to

identify plausible exposure routes (i.e.,

ground water, surface water, air) for

hazardous constituents present in the

petitioned waste. EPA determined that

disposal in a Subtitle D landfill is the

most reasonable, worst-case disposal

scenario for American Steel Cord’s

petitioned waste, and that the major

exposure route of concern would be

ingestion of contaminated ground water.

Therefore, EPA used a fate and transport

model to predict the maximum

concentrations of hazardous

constituents that may be released from

the petitioned waste after disposal and

to determine the potential impact of the

disposal of American Steel Cord’s

petitioned waste on human health and

the environment. Specifically, EPA used

the maximum estimated waste volume

and the health based numbers as inputs

to estimate maximum allowable

leachate concentrations in the ground

water at a hypothetical receptor well

down gradient from the disposal site at

an assumed risk of 10¥6 used in

delisting decision-making for the

hazardous constituents of concern. The

maximum concentrations detected in

the leachate were then compared

directly to the maximum allowable

levels determined by the volume

dependent dilution attenuation factor

times the health-based level.

EPA believes that this fate and

transport model represents a reasonable

worst-case scenario for disposal of the

petitioned waste in a landfill, and that

a reasonable worst-case scenario is

appropriate when evaluating whether a

waste should be relieved of the

protective management constraints of

RCRA Subtitle C (Parts 260 through 266

and 268). The use of a reasonable worstcase scenario results in conservative

values for the compliance-point

concentrations and ensures that the

waste, once removed from hazardous

waste regulation, should not pose a

threat to human health or the

environment.

EPA also considers the applicability

of ground-water monitoring data during

the evaluation of delisting petitions. In

this case, EPA determined that it would

be inappropriate to request groundwater monitoring data because

American Steel Cord currently disposes

of the petitioned waste off-site. For

petitioners using off-site management,

EPA believes that, in most cases, the

ground water monitoring data would

not be meaningful. Most commercial

land disposal facilities accept waste

from numerous generators. Any ground

water contamination or leachate would

be characteristic of the total volume of

waste disposed of at the site. In most

cases, EPA believes that it would be

impossible to isolate ground water

impacts associated with any one waste

disposed of in a commercial landfill.

Therefore, the EPA did not request

ground water monitoring data from

American Steel Cord.

From the evaluation of the delisting

petition, a list of constituents was

developed for annual verification

testing. Proposed maximum allowable

leachable concentrations for these

constituents were derived by backcalculating from the delisting healthbased levels through the proposed fate

and transport model. These

concentrations (i.e., ‘‘delisting levels’’)

are part of the verification testing

conditions of this proposed exclusion.

Finally, the Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments of 1984 specifically

require EPA to provide notice and an

opportunity for comment before

granting or denying a final exclusion.

Thus, a final decision will not be made

until all timely public comments

(including those at public hearings, if

any) on today’s proposal are addressed.

II. Disposition of Delisting Petition

American Steel Cord is located at

Route 1 Box 357K, Scottsburg, Indiana,

47170.

A. Petition for Exclusion

American Steel Cord, located in

Scottsburg, Indiana, manufactures steel

cord for use in steel belted radial tires.

In the manufacturing process, rods of

raw carbon steel are cleaned and drawn

down by a series of dies to reduce the

diameter and produce a thin wire. The

wire is then electrically plated, first

with a non-cyanidic base coat of copper

followed by a non-cyanidic coat of zinc.

The wastewater treatment plant

(WWTP) filter press sludge generated

from this process is presently listed as

EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006:

‘‘Wastewater treatment sludges from

electroplating operations except from

the following processes: (1) Sulfuric

acid anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin

plating on carbon steel; (3) zinc plating

(segregated basis) on carbon steel; (4)

aluminum or zinc-alumiuum plating on
18356 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules

carbon steel; (5) cleaning/stripping

associated with tin, zinc and aluminum

plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical

etching and milling of aluminum.’’ The

constituents of concern for EPA

Hazardous Waste No F006 are cadmium,

hexavalent chromium, nickel, and

cyanide (complexed) (see appendix VII

of part 261).

American Steel Cord petitioned to

exclude its WWTP filter press sludge

because it believes that the petitioned

waste does not meet any of the criteria

under which the waste was listed and

that there are no additional constituents

or factors that could cause the waste to

be hazardous. Review of this petition

included consideration of the original

listing criteria, as well as the additional

factors required by the Hazardous and

Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of

1984. See Section 222 of HSWA, 42 USC

6921(f), and § 260.22.

B. Background

On September 1, 1993, Kokoku Steel

Cord Corporation, now American Steel

Cord petitioned EPA to exclude an

annual volume of 500 cubic yards of

WWTP filter press sludge from the list

of hazardous wastes contained in

§ 261.31. American Steel Cord

subsequently provided additional

information to complete its petition and

to amend the annual volume of

petitioned waste to 950 cubic yards. In

support of its petition, American Steel

Cord submitted detailed descriptions

and schematic diagrams of its

manufacturing and wastewater

treatment processes, and analytical

testing results for representative

samples of the petitioned waste,

including (1) the hazardous

characteristics of ignitability,

corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity; (2)

total constituent analysis for the eight

toxicity characteristic metals listed in

§ 261.24 plus nickel and Toxicity

Characteristic Leaching Procedure

(TCLP, SW–846 Method 1311) analyses

for the eight toxicity characteristic

metals, plus copper, nickel, thallium,

vanadium, and zinc; (3) total constituent

analyses for 121 volatile and semivolatile organic compounds and TCLP

analyses for those compounds detected;

(4) total constituent analysis for sulfide

and cyanide; (5) TCLP analyses for

cyanide; and (6) analysis for total oil

and grease, and percent solids.

American Steel Cord produces steel

cord for use in steel belted radial tires.

Raw carbon steel rods are cleaned in a

hydrochloric acid bath and then placed

into two cold water rinses. The effluent

from the cold water rinses is pumped to

the holding tanks of the WWTP. The

steel rod is placed into a hot water rinse

and then into a bonder solution which

puts a zinc coating on the rod. The rod

is rinsed and placed into a

neutralization tank, then heated and

cooled in preparation for the dry

drawing process. There is no discharge

of materials to the wastewater treatment

plant from the hot water rinse tank,

bonder tank, bonder rinse tank or the

neutralization tank. Sludges from the

bottoms of these tanks are shipped offsite for disposal.

The wire is hydraulically pulled or

‘‘drawn’’ through a series of six dies

followed by a series of seven dies. Each

die extrudes the wire out to a smaller

diameter. There are no materials

discharged to the wastewater treatment

plant from the dry draw process. After

the wire has been reduced to the proper

diameter, it is fed into a furnace at 1,000

degrees C to burn off any impurities

remaining on the wire. The wire is then

pulled through a 30% sulfuric acid bath

followed by a water rinse. Splashes from

either of these tanks are pumped into

the ‘strong acid tank’. Water from the

rinse tank is continually pumped

directly to the WWTP holding tanks.

The steel wire is then put into a 15%

sodium hydroxide bath and rinse.

Splashes are pumped into the ‘strong

alkaline tank’. Next, the wire is

electrically plated with a non-cyanidic

base coat of copper. The wire is then

rinsed and electroplated with a noncyanidic coat of zinc. The zinc plating

is followed by a water rinse. Effluent

from the copper rinse and the zinc rinse

are pumped to the WWTP holding

tanks. Splashes from the copper plating

and copper rinse tanks are collected in

the ‘strong copper tank’ and splashes

from the zinc plating and zinc rinse

tanks are collected in the ‘strong acid

tank’. The strong acid tank, the strong

copper tank, and the strong alkaline

tank are pumped to the WWTP holding

tanks on a regular basis.

The plated wire is fed into a diffusion

fluidized bed furnace to form a brass

plating. After the wire is brassed, the

diameter is further reduced by a wet

draw process through a series of dies

containing a lubricating material. The

wire is then stranded or twisted together

to form a wire cord according to

specifications.

Treatment at the WWTP is a batch

operation. The wastewaters collected

from the various processes in the two

holding tanks are neutralized by the

addition of a lime slurry in a

neutralization tank where the pH is

carefully controlled between 9.5 and

10.5. The water is then pumped into a

clarifier where polymers are added to

aid flocculation. Effluent from the

clarifier is discharged to the City of

Scottsburg’s Wastewater Treatment

Plant under an NPDES permit. Sludge

from the clarifier is pumped into two

solids holding tanks. When the holding

tanks are full, the sludge is pumped to

a plate filter press and dewatered.

Effluent from the filter press is either

discharged to the Scottsburgh Treatment

Plant or it is pumped to the head of the

plant for retreatment. The filtercake falls

off or is scraped from the plates into two

hoppers and is transferred to a roll-off

dumpster. The filtercake is currently

being disposed of as hazardous waste off

site.

American Steel Cord submitted a

signed certification stating that, based

on projected annual waste generation,

the maximum annual generation rate of

WWTP filter press sludge (filtercake)

will not exceed 950 cubic yards

(approximately 950 tons) per year. The

EPA reviews a petitioner’s estimates

and, on occasion, has requested a

petitioner to reevaluate the estimated

waste generation rate. EPA accepts

American Steel Cord’s estimate.

C. Waste Analysis

American Steel Cord developed a list

of analytical constituents based on a

review of facility processes, Material

Safety Data Sheets for raw materials and

chemical additives used in the

manufacturing process, and

recommendations contained in EPA

delisting guidance. See Petitions to

Delist Hazardous Wastes, A Guidance

Manual, dated March 1993.

For American Steel Cord’s petition,

the WWTP filtercake sludge was

sampled once a week for 4 weeks.

Samples were collected on February 2,

February 9, February 18, March 3, 1993,

April 22, May 4, May 21, and June 11,

1993. In response to a request by the

EPA, American Steel Cord also collected

additional samples of the filtercake on

January 23, January 29, February 5, and

February 11, 1997 using the same

procedures as for the previous samples.

Since the filter press is run only on a

batch basis, the collection of samples

was done over a period of time in order

to characterize temporal variability. At

each sampling event, the two hoppers

were each divided into 6 sections and

a sample was taken at various depths

from each of the 12 sections. All

samples were collected with a trowel.

Each sample was packed in an

appropriately labeled bottle. The 12 grab

samples collected were composited by

the lab.

To quantify the total constituent and

leachate concentrations, American Steel

Cord used SW–846 methods 7061 and
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules 18357

1A letter at the end of the method number

indicates the method has been updated since

originally promulgated in SW–846. Additional

samples collected in 1997 were analyzed by the

most current version of the method. For

constituents which were subsequently analyzed by

updated versions of a method, both versions of the

method are noted.

7061A1 for arsenic; methods 7080 and

7080A for barium; method 7130 for

cadmium; method 7190 for chromium;

method 7210 for copper; method 7420

for lead; methods 7470, 7470A and 7471

for mercury; method 7520 for nickel;

methods 7741 and 7741A for selenium;

methods 7760 and 7760A for silver;

method 7840 for thallium; method 7910

for vanadium; method 7950 for zinc;

methods 9010 and 9010A for total

cyanide; methods 9030 and 9030A for

sulfide; methods 8240 and 8260 for

volatile organic compounds; and

method 8270 for semi-volatile organic

compounds. Using SW–846 method

9071, American Steel Cord determined

that the samples of the petitioned waste

had a maximum oil and grease content

of 199 mg/kg. American Steel Cord also

used these methods on the leachate

obtained using the Toxicity

Characteristic Leaching Procedure (SW–

846 method 1311), as described below,

to determine leachable levels of

cyanide, metals, volatile organic

compounds, and semi-volatile organic

compounds.

Characteristic testing of the samples

included analysis of reactive cyanide

(SW–846 Method 7.3.3.2) and reactive

sulfide (SW–846 Method 7.3.4.2).

Table 1 presents the maximum total

and leachate concentrations for 13

metals, total and leachate concentration

for cyanide, and total sulfide. Table 1

also includes maximum total

concentrations for reactive cyanide and

reactive sulfide.

The detection limits presented in

Table 1 represent the lowest

concentrations quantifiable by

American Steel Cord when using the

appropriate SW–846 methods to analyze

its waste. (Detection limits may vary

according to the waste and waste matrix

being analyzed, i.e., the ‘‘cleanliness’’ of

waste matrices varies and ‘‘dirty’’ waste

matrices may cause interferences, thus

raising detection limits.)

TABLE 1.—MAXIMUM TOTAL CONSTITUENT AND LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS 1

[WWTP Filtercake Sludge]

Inorganic constituents

Total constituent

analyses(mg/kg)

TCLP

leachate

analyses

(mg/l)

Arsenic .................. 4.9 .003

TABLE 1.—MAXIMUM TOTAL CONSTITUENT AND LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS 1—Continued

[WWTP Filtercake Sludge]

Inorganic constituents

Total constituent

analyses(mg/kg)

TCLP

leachate

analyses

(mg/l)

Barium ................... 32.8 2.1

Cadmium ............... .7 0.15

Chromium (total) ... 14 0.26

Copper .................. 1990 0.1

Lead ...................... 28 0.16

Mercury ................. 0.1 0.001

Nickel .................... 109 0.73

Selenium ............... 0.02 0.002

Silver ..................... 1.13 0.02

Thallium ................. 8.0 <2

Vanadium .............. 6.0 <2

Zinc ....................... 21,000 1.48

Cyanide (total) ....... 15 .06

Sulfide (total) ......... 96 NA

Cyanide (reactive) .25 NA

Sulfide (reactive) ... 34 NA

1These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent found in any

one sample. These levels do not necessarily

represent the specific levels found in one sample.

< Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the detection limit specified in the

table.

NA Denotes that the constituent was not

analyzed.

American Steel Cord analyzed the

samples of petitioned waste for 58

volatile and 63 semi-volatile organic

compounds. Table 2 presents the

maximum total and leachate

concentrations for all detected organic

constituents in American Steel Cord’s

waste samples.

TABLE 2.—MAXIMUM TOTAL CONSTITUENT AND LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS 1

[WWTP Filtercake Sludge]

Organic constituents

Total constituent

analyses

(mg/kg)

TCLP

leachate

analyses

(mg/l)

Acetone ................. .247 .736

Anthracene ............ .264 <.05

Butyl benzyl

phthlate .............. NA .1

Carbon disulfide .... .021 <.005

carbon tetrachloride .............. .177 <.005

Chloroform ............ .020 .042

1,4-

Dichlorobenzene <.16 .014

cis-1,2-

Dichloroethene .. NA .022

Fluoranthene ......... .166 <.05

Methylene chloride .100 .065

Naphthalene .......... 1.848 .009

Phenanthrene ........ .297 <.05

Styrene .................. <.01 .014

Tetrachloroethene <.01 .008

Toluene ................. <.005 .017

TABLE 2.—MAXIMUM TOTAL CONSTITUENT AND LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS 1—Continued

[WWTP Filtercake Sludge]

Organic constituents

Total constituent

analyses

(mg/kg)

TCLP

leachate

analyses

(mg/l)

Xylenes ................. .022 .033

1These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent found in any

one sample. These levels do not necessarily

represent the specific levels found in one sample.

< Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the detection limit specified in the

table.

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.

D. EPA Evaluation

EPA has reviewed the sampling

procedures used by American Steel

Cord and has determined that they

satisfy EPA criteria for collecting

representative samples. EPA considered

the appropriateness of alternative waste

management scenarios for American

Steel Cord’s WWTP filter press sludge

and decided, based on the information

provided in the petition, that disposal in

a Subtitle D landfill is the most

reasonable, worst-case scenario for this

waste. Under a landfill disposal

scenario, the major exposure route of

concern for any hazardous constituents

would be ingestion of contaminated

ground water. EPA, therefore, evaluated

American Steel Cord’s petitioned waste

using the modified EPA Composite

Model for Landfills (EPACML) which

predicts the potential for ground water

contamination from wastes that are

landfilled. See 56 FR 32993 (July 18,

1991), 56 FR 67197 (December 30,

1991), and the RCRA public docket for

these notices for a detailed description

of the EPACML model, the disposal

assumptions, and the modifications

made for delisting. This model, which

includes both unsaturated and saturated

zone transport modules, was used to

predict reasonable, worst-case

contaminant levels in ground water at a

compliance point (i.e., a receptor well

serving as a drinking-water supply).

Specifically, the model estimated the

dilution/attenuation factor (DAF)

resulting from subsurface processes

such as three-dimensional dispersion

and dilution from ground water

recharge for a specific volume of waste.

The DAFs generated using the EPACML
18358 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules

vary from a maximum of 100 for smaller

annual volumes of waste (i.e., less than

1,000 cubic yards per year) to DAFs

approaching ten for larger volume

wastes (i.e., 400,000 cubic yards per

year).

Typically, EPA uses the maximum

annual waste volume to derive a

petition-specific DAF. American Steel

Cord’s maximum waste volume of 950

cubic yards per year corresponds to a

DAF of 100. EPA’s evaluation used a

DAF of 100 times the health based level

(HBL) used in delisting decision making

to determine the maximum allowable

leachate concentrations for American

Steel Cord’s waste (see Table 3).

TABLE 3.—EPACML: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS

[WWTP Filtercake Sludge]

Inorganic and organic constituents

Maximum

leachate concentrations in

waste (mg/l)

Levels of

regulatory

concern

(mg/l)

HBL 1

Arsenic ................................................................................................................................................ 0.003 5 0.05

Barium ................................................................................................................................................ 2.1 200 2

Cadmium ............................................................................................................................................ .15 .5 .005

Chromium (total) ................................................................................................................................. .26 10 0.1

Copper ................................................................................................................................................ .1 130 1.3

Lead .................................................................................................................................................... .16 1.5 .015

Mercury ............................................................................................................................................... .001 .2 .002

Nickel .................................................................................................................................................. .73 10 0.1

Selenium ............................................................................................................................................. .002 5 .05

Silver ................................................................................................................................................... .02 20 .2

Zinc ..................................................................................................................................................... 1.48 1,000 10

Cyanide .............................................................................................................................................. .06 20 .2

Acetone .............................................................................................................................................. .736 400 4

Benzo butyl phthlate ........................................................................................................................... .1 10 .1

Chloroform .......................................................................................................................................... .042 10 .01

1,4-Dichlorobenzene .......................................................................................................................... .0014 7.5 .075

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ........................................................................................................................ 0.022 7 .07

Methylene chloride ............................................................................................................................. .065 .5 .005

Naphthalene ....................................................................................................................................... .009 100 1.0

Styrene ............................................................................................................................................... .014 10 0.1

Tetrachloroethene .............................................................................................................................. .008 .5 .005

Toluene ............................................................................................................................................... .017 100 1.0

Xylene ................................................................................................................................................. .033 1,000 10

1See ‘‘Docket Report on Health-Based Levels and Solubilities Used in the Evaluation of Delisting Petitions,’’ December 1994, located in the

RCRA public docket for today’s notice.

For inorganic constituents, the

maximum reported leachate

concentrations of arsenic, barium,

cadmium, chromium (total), copper,

lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver,

and zinc in the WWTP filtercake sludge

were well below the maximum

allowable leachate concentrations. EPA

did not evaluate the mobility of the

remaining inorganic constituents (i.e.,

thallium and vanadium) from American

Steel Cord’s waste because they were

not detected in the leachate using the

appropriate analytical test methods (see

Table 1). EPA believes that it is

inappropriate to evaluate non-detectable

concentrations of a constituent of

concern in its modeling efforts if the

non-detectable value was obtained using

the appropriate analytical method. If a

constituent cannot be detected (when

using the appropriate analytical method

with an adequate detection limit), EPA

assumes that the constituent is not

present and therefore does not present

a threat to human health or the

environment.

EPA also evaluated the potential

hazards of the organic constituents

detected in the TCLP extract of the

samples (i.e., acetone, butyl benzyl

phthlate, chloroform, 1,4-

dichlorobenzene 1,2-dichloroethene,

methylene chloride, naphthalene,

styrene, tetrachloroethene, toluene,

1,2,4-trimethyl benzene, and xylene).

The maximum leachate concentrations

detected are significantly below the

calculated maximum allowable levels.

After reviewing American Steel

Cord’s processes, EPA accepts American

Steel Cord’s analysis that no other

hazardous constituents, other than those

tested for, are likely to be present in the

waste, and that any migration of

hazardous constituents from the waste

would result in concentrations below

delisting health-based levels of concern.

In addition, on the basis of test results

and information provided by American

Steel Cord pursuant to § 260.22, EPA

concludes that the petitioned waste

does not exhibit any of the

characteristics of ignitability,

corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity.

In its evaluation of American Steel

Cord’s petition, EPA also considered the

potential impact of the petitioned waste

via non-ground water routes (i.e., air

emission and surface runoff). With

regard to airborne dispersal, EPA

believes that no appreciable air releases

are likely from American Steel Cord’s

waste under any likely disposal

conditions. Therefore, there is no

substantial present or potential hazard

to human health from airborne exposure

to constituents from American Steel

Cord’s petitioned waste.

EPA also considered the potential

impact of the petitioned wastes via a

surface water route. EPA believes that

containment structures at municipal

solid waste landfills can effectively

control surface water run-off, as the

Subtitle D regulations (see 56 FR 50978,

October 9, 1991) prohibit pollutant

discharges into surface waters.

Furthermore, the concentrations of any

hazardous constituents in the run-off

will tend to be lower than the extraction

procedure test results reported in

today’s notice because of the aggressive

acidic media used for extraction in the

TCLP. EPA believes that, in general,

leachate derived from the waste is

unlikely to directly enter a surface water
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules 18359

body without first traveling through the

saturated subsurface where dilution/

attenuation of hazardous constituents

will also occur. Leachable

concentrations provide a direct measure

of the solubility of a toxic constituent in

water, and are indicative of the fraction

of the constituent that may be mobilized

in surface water, as well as ground

water. The reported TCLP data show

that the constituents which might leach

from American Steel Cord’s waste and

be released to surface water would not

be likely to exceed the health-based

levels of concern. EPA, therefore,

concludes that American Steel Cord’s

waste is not a significant hazard to

human health or the environment via

the surface water exposure pathway.

E. Conclusion

Based on descriptions of the process

from which the petitioned waste is

derived, descriptions of American Steel

Cord’s wastewater treatment process,

and analytical characterization of the

petitioned waste, EPA believes that

American Steel Cord has successfully

demonstrated that the petitioned waste

is not hazardous. EPA, therefore,

proposes to grant an exclusion to

American Steel Cord for its WWTP

filtercake sludge described in its

petition as EPA Hazardous Waste No.

F006. If made final, the proposed

exclusion will apply only to 950 cubic

yards (approximately equivalent to 950

tons) of petitioned waste generated

annually, on a calendar year basis. The

facility must treat waste generated in

excess of 950 cubic yards per year as

hazardous. If either the manufacturing

or treatment processes are altered such

that an adverse change in waste

composition occurs (e.g., higher levels

of hazardous constituents), this

exclusion would no longer be valid.

Although management of the waste

covered by this petition would be

removed from Subtitle C jurisdiction

upon final promulgation of an

exclusion, this exclusion applies only

where this waste is disposed of in a

Subtitle D landfill which is permitted,

licensed, or registered by a State to

manage municipal or industrial solid

waste.

F. Verification Testing Conditions

EPA is proposing to require American

Steel Cord to demonstrate on an annual

basis that the constituents of concern in

the petitioned waste do not exceed the

levels of concern in paragraph 1 below.

These levels are based on delisting

health-based values and a DAF of 100.

American Steel Cord must analyze four

representative samples of the WWTP

filtercake sludge on an annual, calendaryear basis using methods with

appropriate detection levels and quality

control procedures. If the level of any

constituent measured in any sample of

WWTP filtercake sludge exceeds the

levels set forth in paragraph 1 below,

then the waste is hazardous and must be

managed in accordance with Subtitle C

of RCRA.

1. Delisting Levels

Concentrations measured in the TCLP

extract of the waste of the following

constituents must not exceed the

following levels (mg/l).

Arsenic—5; Barium—200;

Cadmium—.5; Chromium —10;

Copper— 130; Lead—1.5; Mercury—.2;

Nickel—10; Selenium—5; Silver—20;

Zinc—1,000; Acetone—400; Benzo butyl

phthlate—10; Chloroform— 10; 1,4-

Dichlorobenzene—7.5; cis-1,2-

Dichloroethane—7; Methylene

chloride—.5; Naphthalene—100;

Styrene—10; Tetrachloroethene—.5;

Toluene—100; Xylene—1,000.

2. Changes in Operating Conditions

If American Steel Cord significantly

changes the manufacturing or treatment

process or the chemicals used in the

manufacturing or treatment process,

American Steel Cord may handle the

WWTP filtercake sludge generated from

the new process under this exclusion

after the facility has demonstrated that

the waste meets the levels set in

paragraph 1 and that no new hazardous

constituents listed in Appendix VIII of

Part 261 have been introduced.

3. Data Submittals

The data obtained through annual

verification testing or paragraph 2 must

be submitted to U.S. EPA Region 5, 77

W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604,

within 60 days of sampling. Records of

operating conditions and analytical data

must be compiled, summarized, and

maintained on site for a minimum of

five years and must be made available

for inspection. All data must be

accompanied by a signed copy of the

certification statement in 260.22(i)(12).

III. Effect on State Authorizations

This proposed exclusion, if

promulgated, would be issued under the

Federal (RCRA) delisting program.

States, however, may impose more

stringent regulatory requirements than

EPA, pursuant to section 3009 of RCRA.

These more stringent requirements may

include a provision which prohibits a

Federally-issued exclusion from taking

effect in the State. Because a petitioner’s

waste may be regulated under a dual

system (i.e., both Federal (RCRA) and

State (non-RCRA) programs), petitioners

are urged to contact State regulatory

authorities to determine the current

status of their wastes under the State

laws.

Furthermore, some States are

authorized to administer a delisting

program in lieu of the Federal program

(i.e., to make their own delisting

decisions). Therefore, this proposed

exclusion, if promulgated, may not

apply in those authorized States. If the

petitioned waste will be transported to

any State with delisting authorization,

American Steel Cord must obtain

delisting authorization from that State

before the waste may be managed as

nonhazardous in the State.

IV. Effective Date

This rule, if made final, will become

effective immediately upon such final

publication. The Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments of 1984 amended

Section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to

become effective in less than six months

when the regulated community does not

need the six-month period to come into

compliance. That is the case here,

because this rule, if finalized, would

reduce the existing requirements for a

person generating a hazardous waste. In

light of the unnecessary hardship and

expense that would be imposed on this

petitioner by an effective date six

months after publication and the fact

that a six-month deadline is not

necessary to achieve the purpose of

Section 3010, EPA believes that this

exclusion should be effective

immediately upon final publication.

These reasons also provide a basis for

making this rule effective immediately,

upon final publication, under the

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC

553(d).

V. Regulatory Impact

Under Executive Order 12291, EPA

must judge whether a regulation is

‘‘major’’ and therefore subject to the

requirement of a Regulatory Impact

Analysis. The proposal to grant an

exclusion is not major, since its effect,

if promulgated, would be to reduce the

overall costs and economic impact of

EPA’s hazardous waste management

regulations. This reduction would be

achieved by excluding waste generated

at a specific facility from EPA’s lists of

hazardous wastes, thereby enabling this

facility to manage its waste as nonhazardous. There is no additional

impact, therefore, due to today’s

proposed rule. This proposal is not a

major regulation; therefore, no

Regulatory Impact Analysis is required.
18360 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, whenever an

agency is required to publish a general

notice of rulemaking for any proposed

or final rule, it must prepare and make

available for public comment a

regulatory flexibility analysis which

describes the impact of the rule on small

entities (i.e., small businesses, small

organizations, and small governmental

jurisdictions). The Administrator or

delegated representative may certify,

however, that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

This rule, if promulgated, will not

have an adverse economic impact on

small entities since its effect would be

to reduce the overall costs of EPA’s

hazardous waste regulations.

Accordingly, I hereby certify that this

proposed regulation, if promulgated,

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. This regulation, therefore, does

not require a regulatory flexibility

analysis.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

Information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated with

this proposed rule have been approved

by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under the provisions of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(P.L. 96–511, 44 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, it must develop under

section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, giving them

meaningful and timely input in the

development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising them

on compliance with the regulatory

requirements. The UMRA generally

defines a Federal mandate for regulatory

purposes as one that imposes an

enforceable duty upon State, local or

tribal governments or the private sector.

EPA finds that today’s proposed

delisting decision is deregulatory in

nature and does not impose any

enforceable duty upon State, local or

tribal governments or the private sector.

In addition, the proposed delisting does

not establish any regulatory

requirements for small governments and

so does not require a small government

agency plan under UMRA section 203.

IX. The Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801, et seq., as amended by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, (‘‘CRA’’) generally

provides that before a rule may take

effect, the agency promulgating the rule

must submit a rule report, which

includes a copy of the rule, to each

House of the Congress and to the

Comptroller General of the United

States. Rules of particular applicability

are exempt, however, from the CRA. 5

U.S.C. 804(3). Inasmuch as this action

affects only one facility, it would be a

rule of particular applicability which is

exempt from the requirements of the

CRA and the EPA is not required to

submit a rule report regarding today’s

action under section 801.

X. Children’s Health Protection

Under Executive Order (‘‘EO’’) 13045,

for all ‘‘significant’’ regulatory actions as

defined by EO 12866, EPA must provide

an evaluation of the environmental

health or safety effect of a proposed rule

on children and an explanation of why

the proposed rule is preferable to other

potentially effective and reasonably

feasible alternatives considered by EPA.

This proposal is not a significant

regulatory action and is exempt from EO

13045.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous

waste, Recycling, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C.

6921(f).

Dated: March 25, 1998.

Norman R. Niedergang,

Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics

Division.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 40 CFR Part 261 is proposed

to be amended as follows:

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

1. The authority citation for Part 261

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,

6922, and 6938.

2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of Part

261 it is proposed to add the following

waste stream in alphabetical order by

facility to read as follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22.

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description

* * * * * * *

American Steel Cord Corporation ... Scottsburg, Indiana ..................... Dewatered wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) filtercake (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006) generated from electroplating operations at

a maximum annual rate of 950 cubic yards per year, after (insert

publication date of the final rule).
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules 18361

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued

Facility Address Waste description

1. Verification Testing: American Steel Cord must implement an annual

testing program to demonstrate that the constituent concentrations

measured in the TCLP extract of the waste do not exceed the following levels (mg/1). Arsenic—5; Barium—200; Cadmium—.5; Chromium—10; Copper—130; Lead—1.5; Mercury—.2; Nickel—10; Selenium—5; Silver—20; Zinc—1,000; Cyanide—20; Acetone—400;

Benzo butyl phthlate—10; Chloroform—10; 1,4-Dichlorobenzene—

7.5; cis–1,2–Dichloroethene—7; Methylene chloride—.5; Naphthalene—100; Styrene—10; Tetrachloroethene—.5; Toluene—100;

Xylene—1,000.

2. Changes in Operating Conditions: If American Steel Cord changes

the manufacturing or treatment process or the chemicals used in the

manufacturing or treatment process, American Steel Cord may handle the WWTP filtercake sludge generated from the new process

under this exclusion after the facility has demonstrated that the

waste meets the levels set forth in paragraph 1 and that no new

hazardous constituents listed in Appendix VIII of Part 261 have been

introduced.

3. Data Submittals: The data obtained through annual verification testing or paragraph 2 must be submitted to U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W.

Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, within 60 days of sampling.

Records of operating conditions and analytical data must be compiled, summarized, and maintained on site for a minimum of five

years and must be made available for inspection. All data must be

accompanied by a signed copy of the certification statement in

260.22(I)(12).

* * * * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–10005 Filed 4–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P