[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32746-32753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15884]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261

[SW-FRL-5525-3]


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 to Bekaert Steel Corporation (Bekaert) of Rogers, 
Arkansas to exclude (or ``delist''), certain solid wastes generated at 
its facility from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 
261.31 and 261.32 (hereinafter all sectional references are to 40 CFR 
unless otherwise indicated). This action responds to a delisting 
petition submitted under 40 CFR 260.20, which allows any person to 
petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of 40 CFR 
Parts 260 through 266, 268 and 273, and under 40 CFR 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 hazardous waste 
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

DATES: The EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision. 
Comments will be accepted until August 9, 1996. 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 Jane N. Saginaw, Regional Administrator, whose 
address appears below, by July 10, 1996. The request must contain the 
information prescribed in 40 CFR 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Send three copies of your comments. Two copies should be 
sent to William Gallagher, Delisting Program, Multimedia Planning and 
Permitting Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. A third copy should be sent to 
the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, P.O. Box 
8913, 8001 National Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72219-8913. Identify 
your comments at the top with this regulatory docket number: ``F-96-
ARDEL-BEKAERT.''

[[Page 32747]]

    Requests for a hearing should be addressed to the Regional 
Administrator, Region 6, Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202.
    The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule is located at the 
Region 6, Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 
Texas 75202 and is available for viewing in the EPA library on the 12th 
floor from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for appointments. The docket may 
also be viewed at the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and 
Ecology, 8001 National Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72219-8913. The 
public may copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the 
first 100 pages, and at $0.15 per page for additional copies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: For technical information concerning 
this notice, contact David Vogler, Delisting Program (6PD-O), Region 6, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202, 
(214) 665-7428.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Authority

    On January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim final 
regulations implementing Section 3001 of RCRA, the 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 
Sec. 261.31 and Sec. 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 Sec. 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 hazardous. For this reason, Sec. 260.20 and 
Sec. 260.22 provide an exclusion procedure, allowing persons to 
demonstrate that a specific waste from a particular generating facility 
should not be regulated as a hazardous waste.
    To have their wastes excluded, petitioners must show that wastes 
generated at their facilities do not meet any of the criteria for which 
the wastes were listed. See Sec. 260.22(a) and the background documents 
for the listed wastes. In addition, the Hazardous and Solid Waste 
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 require the Agency to consider any 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. Accordingly, 
a petitioner also must demonstrate that the waste does not exhibit any 
of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability, reactivity, 
corrosivity, and toxicity), and must present sufficient information for 
the Agency to determine whether the waste contains any of the other 
identified constituents at hazardous levels. See Sec. 260.22(a), 42 
U.S.C. Sec. 6921(f), and the background documents for the listed 
wastes. Although wastes which are ``delisted'' (i.e., excluded) have 
been evaluated to determine whether or not they exhibit any of the 
characteristics of hazardous waste, generators remain obligated under 
RCRA to determine whether or not their waste remains non-hazardous 
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 Secs. 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 the Agency on procedural grounds. See 
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). On December 21, 1995, the EPA proposed rules related to waste 
mixtures and residues at 60 FR 66344 and invited public comment. These 
references should be consulted for more information regarding mixtures 
and residues.

B. Approach Used To Evaluate This Petition

    Bekaert's petition requests a delisting for a listed hazardous 
waste. In making the initial delisting determination, the EPA evaluated 
the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in 
Sec. 261.11 (a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, the EPA agreed 
with the petitioner that the waste is non-hazardous with respect to the 
original listing criteria. (If the EPA had found, based on this review, 
that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for which the 
waste was originally listed, the EPA would have proposed to deny the 
petition.) The EPA then evaluated the waste with respect to other 
factors or criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to 
believe that such additional factors could cause the waste to be 
hazardous. The EPA considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, and 
considered the toxicity of the constituents, the concentration of the 
constituents in the waste, 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, the EPA used such information to 
identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground water, surface water, 
air) for hazardous constituents present in the petitioned waste. The 
EPA determined that disposal in a Subtitle D landfill is the most 
reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for Bekaert's petitioned 
waste, and that the major exposure route of concern would be ingestion 
of contaminated ground water. Therefore, the EPA used a particular fate 
and transport model to predict the maximum allowable concentrations of 
hazardous constituents that may be released from the petitioned waste 
after disposal and to determine the potential impact of the disposal of 
Bekaert's petitioned waste on human health and the environment. 
Specifically, the EPA used the maximum estimated waste volume and the 
maximum reported extract concentrations as inputs to estimate the 
constituent concentrations in the ground water at a hypothetical 
receptor well downgradient from the disposal site. The calculated 
receptor well concentrations (referred to as compliance-point 
concentrations) were then compared directly to the current Maximum 
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act 
(SWDA) or health-based levels derived from Verified Reference Doses 
(RfDs). The value used for copper is an action level for treatment of a 
water supply in lieu of a MCL (40 CFR Sec. 141.80).
    The 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

[[Page 32748]]

RCRA Subtitle C. The use of a reasonable worst-case scenario results in 
conservative values for the compliance-point concentrations and ensures 
that the waste, once removed from hazardous waste regulation, will not 
pose a threat to human health or the environment. Because a delisted 
waste is no longer subject to hazardous waste control, the EPA is 
generally unable to predict and does not presently control how a waste 
will be managed after delisting. Therefore, the EPA does not currently 
consider extensive site-specific factors when applying the fate and 
transport model.
    The EPA also considers the applicability of groundwater monitoring 
data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. The EPA normally 
requests groundwater monitoring data for wastes currently managed or 
have ever been managed in a land based management unit. Groundwater 
monitoring data provides significant additional information important 
to fully characterize the potential impact (if any) of the disposal of 
a petitioned waste on human health and the environment. In this case, 
the EPA determined that the groundwater monitoring data was not 
applicable to the evaluation of the petitioned waste. Specifically, 
Bekaert currently disposes of the petitioned waste generated from its 
filter press which is part of their wastewater treatment facility in an 
off-site RCRA hazardous waste landfill (which is not owned/operated by 
Bekaert). This landfill did not begin accepting the petitioned waste 
generated by the filter press until September 1991. In other words, the 
petitioned waste comprises a small fraction of the total waste managed 
in the off-site units. The Agency, therefore, believes that any ground-
water monitoring data from the landfill would not be meaningful for an 
evaluation of the specific effect of the petitioned waste on ground 
water. However, the potential impact of these wastes on ground water is 
predicted through the application of a fate and transport model.
    Finally, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 
specifically require the 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

    Bekaert Steel Corporation, One Bekaert Drive, Rogers, Arkansas, 
72757

A. Petition for Exclusion

    Bekaert, located in Rogers, Arkansas, manufactures steel cord by 
reducing the diameter of steel rods followed by electroplating and 
further reduction. Bekaert petitioned the Agency to exclude its 
wastewater treatment filter cake 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; (5) cleaning/stripping 
associated with tin, zinc, and aluminum plating on carbon steel; and 
(6) chemical etching and milling of aluminum''. The listed constituents 
of concern for EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006 are: cadmium, hexavalent 
chromium, nickel and cyanide (complexed) (see 40 CFR part 261, Appendix 
VII).
    Bekaert petitioned the EPA to exclude its waste filter cake because 
it does not believe that the waste meets the criteria for which it was 
listed. Bekaert also believes that the waste does not contain any other 
constituents that would render it 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 U.S.C. Sec. 6921(f), and 40 
CFR Sec. 260.22(d) (2)-(4). Today's proposal to grant this petition for 
delisting is the result of the EPA's evaluation of Bekaert's petition.

B. Background

    On September 11, 1995, Bekaert petitioned the EPA to exclude, from 
the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR Sec. 261.31 and 
Sec. 261.32, its wastewater filter cake generated from its wastewater 
treatment system. Bekaert subsequently provided additional information 
to complete its petition.
    In support of its petition, Bekaert submitted: (1) Descriptions of 
its manufacturing and wastewater treatment processes, including 
schematic diagrams; (2) a list of all raw materials and Material Safety 
Data Sheets (MSDSs) for all trade name products used in the 
manufacturing and waste treatment processes; (3) results from total 
constituent analyses for fourteen metals including the eight Toxicity 
Characteristic (TC) metals listed in Sec. 261.24 (i.e., the TC metals) 
and antimony, beryllium, copper, nickel, thallium, and zinc from 
representative samples of the petitioned waste; (4) results from the 
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW-846 Method 1311) 
for fourteen metals which include the eight TC metals, and antimony, 
beryllium, copper, nickel, thallium, and zinc from representative 
samples of the petitioned waste; (5) results from total constituent 
analysis for total and reactive sulfide and cyanide for representative 
samples of the petitioned waste; (6) results from total oil and grease 
analyses from representative samples of the petitioned waste; (7) test 
results and information regarding the hazardous characteristics of 
ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity; and (8) results from total 
constituent analyses for certain volatile and semi-volatile organic 
compounds from representative samples of the petitioned waste.
    Bekaert manufactures steel cord which is sold to the tire 
manufacturing industry for use in reinforcing tires. The steel cord is 
produced from steel rod which has been reduced in size and 
electroplated with a copper and zinc alloy.
    The manufacturing processes contribute to the petitioned waste from 
the following sources: water from the caustic scrubbers, water from the 
hydrochloric acid scrubbers, water from the rinse used to remove soap 
from wire, water from the cooling water bath following fluidized bed 
heater, waste acid from the hydrochloric acid pickling, water from the 
rinse following the zinc plating bath, water from the cooling bath 
following induction heating, phosphoric acid from the phosphoric acid 
bath, water from the phosphoric acid rinse bath and the spent oil/water 
mixture (non-petroleum) used as a lubricant in the process.
    Wastewaters from the manufacturing process are collected and stored 
in four central tanks prior to discharge to the wastewater treatment 
plant. The petitioned waste is generated from the wastewater treatment 
plant and not directly from the manufacturing process. Wastewaters are 
transferred from the holding tanks to a treatment tank where it is 
neutralized with sodium hydroxide. After neutralization, one of several 
methods are employed to remove solids: (1) A polymer is added to 
promote flocculation. This wastewater is then sent to a sludge 
thickening tank from which the sludge is sent to the filter press; (2) 
the wastewater is routed to an ultrafiltration unit to remove solids 
which are routed to the filter press; or (3) the wastewater is routed 
to a clarifier where a polymer is added to aid in solids precipitation. 
The solids are routed to the sludge thickening tank and then to the 
filter press.

[[Page 32749]]

    The petitioned waste is dropped from the filter press at the end of 
the wastewater treatment process into a 18 x 8 x 5 foot hopper. The 
F006 filter press cake is currently sent to a permitted hazardous waste 
facility for disposal.
    To collect representative samples, petitioners are normally 
requested to divide the unit into four quadrants (not exceeding 10,000 
square feet per quadrant) and randomly collect five full-depth core 
samples from each quadrant. The five full-depth core samples are then 
composited (mixed) by quadrant to produce a total of four composite 
samples. See Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes: Physical/
Chemical Methods, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 
Response, Publication SW-846 (third edition), November 1986, and 
Petitions to Delist Hazardous Wastes--A Guidance Manual, (second 
edition), U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, (EPA/530-R-93-007), March 
1993.
    Bekaert submitted analytical results from five composite filter 
cake samples collected from the hoppers at five different days taken at 
intervals during a period between May 25, 1995, and July 10, 1995. This 
was done to demonstrate that the waste composition did not vary with 
time. In order account for spatial variability, grab samples were 
collected from four randomly selected sample locations based on a grid 
pattern that divided each hopper into ten grids. The entire depth 
(approximately five feet) of each hopper was sampled. A composite of 
the four grab samples was obtained to represent that day's sample.
    Bekaert developed a list of constituents of concern from comparing 
a list of all raw materials used in the plant that could potentially 
appear in the petitioned waste with those found in 40 CFR Sec. 261, 
Appendix VIII, as well as the following six constituents not found in 
Appendix VIII: acetone, ethylbenzene, isophorone, 4-methyl-2-pentanone, 
styrene, and total xylenes. Based on this review, it was not 
anticipated that any of the Appendix VIII organic compounds or any of 
the six additional organic compounds would be present in the petitioned 
waste.
    Using the list of constituents of concern, Bekaert analyzed the 
five composite samples for the total concentrations (i.e., mass of a 
particular constituent per mass of waste) of the eight TCLP metals, 
antimony, beryllium, copper, nickel, thallium, zinc, selected volatile 
and semi-volatile organic constituents, and oil and grease content. 
These five samples were also analyzed to determine whether the waste 
exhibited ignitable, corrosive, or reactive properties as defined, 
respectively, under Sec. 261.21, Sec. 261.22, and Sec. 261.23, 
including analysis for total constituent concentrations of cyanide, 
sulfide, reactive cyanide, and reactive sulfide. These five samples 
were also analyzed for TCLP concentrations (i.e., mass of a particular 
constituent per unit volume of extract) of the eight TC metals, and 
antimony, beryllium, copper, nickel, thallium, and zinc.

C. Agency Analysis

    Bekaert used SW-846 Methods 7041, 7091, 7191, and 7196A, in 
respective order, to quantify the total constituent concentrations and 
leachable (TCLP) concentrations of antimony, beryllium, chromium, and 
hexavalent chromium; and SW-846 Method 6010A was used to quantify total 
constituent concentrations and leachable (TCLP) concentrations of 
arsenic, barium, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, 
thallium, and zinc in samples. SW-846 methods 7471 and 7470 were used 
to determine total and leachable (in respective order) constituent 
concentrations for mercury.
    Using SW 846 Method 9070, Bekaert determined that the petitioned 
waste had a maximum oil and grease content of 5700 mg/kg.
    Characteristic testing was conducted on the samples of the 
petitioned waste, including analysis for reactive cyanide and reactive 
sulfide (SW-846 Methods 7.3.3.2 and 7.3.4.1, respectively), 
ignitability (ASTM D-4982B), and corrosivity (SW-846 Method 9045). 
Bekaert used SW-846 Methods 9012 and 4500 to quantify concentrations of 
the total and complexed cyanide, respectively, in the samples. Bekaert 
used Method 9030A to quantify the total constituent concentrations of 
sulfide in the samples.
    Table 1 presents the maximum total constituent and leachate 
concentrations for the eight TC metals, antimony, beryllium, copper, 
nickel, thallium, and zinc for the composite samples of the petitioned 
waste. Table 1 also presents maximum reactive cyanide and reactive 
sulfide concentrations.
    The detection limits presented in Table 1 represent the lowest 
concentrations quantifiable by Bekaert when using the appropriate SW-
846 or Agency-approved analytical methods to analyze its waste. 
(Detection limits may vary according to the waste and waste matrix 
being analyzed, i.e., the ``cleanliness'' waste matrices varies and 
``dirty'' waste matrices may cause interferences, thus raising the 
detection limits).
    Bekaert used SW-846 Methods 8240 and 8270 to quantify the total 
constituent concentrations of 30 volatile and 71 semi-volatile organic 
compounds, respectively, in the waste samples. This suite of 
constituents included all of the organic constituents listed in 
Sec. 261.24 as well as other organic compounds commonly analyzed for in 
hazardous waste samples. Bekaert used SW-846 Methods 8240, 8270, 8150A, 
3510A, and 8080 to quantify the leachable concentrations of 11 
volatile, 13 semi-volatile, 2 chlorinated herbicides, and 7 pesticides 
(all organic compounds), respectively, in the waste samples, following 
extraction by SW-846 Method 1311 (TCLP). This suite of constituents 
included all of the organic constituents listed in Sec. 261.24. Table 2 
presents the maximum total and leachate concentrations of all detected 
organic constituents in Bekaert's waste and waste extract samples. 
Lastly, on the basis of explanations and analytical data provided by 
Bekaert, none of the analyzed samples exhibited the characteristics of 
ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. See Sec. 261.21, Sec. 261.22 
and Sec. 261.23.

  Table 1.--Maximum Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations (ppm) 
                         \1\ Filter Press Waste                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Total        TCLP  
                                                  constituent   leachate
             Inorganic constituents                 analyses    analyses
                                                    (mg/kg)      (mg/l) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony........................................      < 0.50        0.34
Arsenic.........................................      < 5.00      < 0.05
Barium..........................................         2.5         1.3
Beryllium.......................................      < 0.10      < 0.05
Cadmium.........................................         3.1      < 0.05
Chromium........................................          68      < 0.05
Chromium (hexavalent)...........................       < 5.0      < 0.05
Copper..........................................         580          12
Lead............................................       < 5.0      < 0.10
Mercury.........................................     < 0.125     < 0.005
Nickel..........................................          43         1.1
Selenium........................................         6.4       0.091
Silver..........................................         1.2         0.2
Thallium........................................        < 10      < 0.10
Zinc............................................       16000         470
Cyanide (complexed) (total).....................        0.31       0.030
Cyanide (soluble)...............................      < 0.13          NA
Cyanide (reactive)..............................     < 0.050          NA
Sulfide (reactive)..............................         <10         NA 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
< Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the detection limit  
  specified in the table.                                               
\1\ These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent
  found in any one sample. These levels do not represent the specific   
  levels found in one sample.                                           
NA Denotes that the constituent was not analyzed.                       


[[Page 32750]]



  Table 2.--Maximum Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations (ppm) 
                         \1\ Filter Press Sludge                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Total        TCLP  
                                                  constituent   leachate
              Organic constituents                  analyses    analyses
                                                    (mg/kg)      (mg/l) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methyl Ethyl Ketone.............................       0.120     < 0.100
Dichloromethane.................................       0.008          NA
4-Methylphenol..................................        <1.0      0.067 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
< Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the detection limit  
  specified in the table.                                               
\1\ These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent
  found in any one sample. These levels do not represent the specific   
  levels found in one sample.                                           
NA Denotes that the constituent was not analyzed.                       

Bekaert submitted a signed certification stating that the maximum 
volume of filter cake generated on an annual basis is 1,022 cubic yards 
of waste. The EPA reviews a petitioner's estimates and, on occasion, 
has requested a petitioner to re-evaluate estimated waste volume. The 
EPA accepted Bekaert's certified estimate of 1,022 cubic yards of 
annual generated waste. The petition was evaluated at a waste volume of 
1,250 cubic yards of annual generated which is a more conservative 
approach and also allows for future fluctuations in waste output.
    The EPA does not generally verify submitted test data before 
proposing delisting decisions. The sworn affidavit submitted with this 
petition binds the petitioner to present truthful and accurate results. 
The EPA, however, has maintained a spot-check sampling and analysis 
program to verify the representative nature of the data for some 
percentage of the submitted petitions. A spot-check visit to a selected 
facility may be initiated before finalizing a delisting petition or 
after granting a final exclusion.

D. Agency Evaluation

    The EPA considered the appropriateness of alternative waste 
management scenarios for Bekaert's petitioned waste and decided, based 
on the information provided in the petition, that disposal in a 
municipal solid waste 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. The EPA, therefore, evaluated 
Bekaert's petitioned waste using the modified EPACML which predicts the 
potential for groundwater 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 groundwater 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 groundwater recharge for a specific volume 
of waste. The EPA requests comments on the use of the EPACML as applied 
to the evaluation of Bekaert's petitioned waste.
    For the evaluation of Bekaert's petitioned waste, the EPA used the 
EPACML to evaluate the mobility of the hazardous inorganic constituents 
detected in the extract of samples of Bekaert's petitioned waste. The 
EPA intends to evaluate petitions for generated wastes on a case-by-
case basis. The DAFs are currently calculated assuming an ongoing 
process generates wastes for 20 years. EPA's evaluation, using a DAF of 
96, maximum annual waste volume estimate of 1,250 cubic yards and the 
maximum reported TCLP leachate concentrations (see Table 1), yielded 
compliance-point concentrations (see Table 3) that are below the 
current health-based levels used in delisting decision-making.
    The maximum reported or calculated leachate concentrations of 
antimony, barium, copper, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc in the 
petitioned waste yielded compliance point concentrations below the 
health-based levels used in delisting decision-making. The EPA did not 
evaluate the mobility of the remaining inorganic constituents (i.e., 
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and thallium) in 
Bekaert's waste because they were not detected in the leachate using 
the appropriate analytical test methods (see Table 1). The EPA believes 
that it is inappropriate to evaluate nondetectable concentrations of a 
constituent of concern in its modeling efforts if the nondetectable 
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), the EPA assumes that the 
constituent is not present and therefore does not present a threat to 
human health or the environment.

   Table 3.--EPACML: Calculated Compliance-Point Concentrations (ppm)   
                            Petitioned Waste                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Compliance      Levels of 
                                                point        regulatory 
          Inorganic constituents            concentrations    concern <SUP>2 
                                              <SUP>1  (mg/l)        (mg/l)   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................................         0.0036           0.006
Barium...................................         0.014            2.0  
Copper...................................         0.13             1.3  
Nickel...................................         0.012            0.1  
Selenium.................................         0.00096          0.05 
Silver...................................         0.002            0.2  
Zinc.....................................         4.90            10.   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Using the maximum TCLP leachate level and based on a DAF of 96      
  calculated using the EPACML for an annual volume of 1,250 cubic yards.
                                                                        
\2\ See 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.                                

    The EPA also evaluated the potential hazard of methyl ethyl ketone, 
4-methylphenol (p-cresol), and dichloromethane, the only organic 
constituents detected in the total concentrations or TCLP extract of 
samples of Bekaert's petitioned waste. Process information submitted by 
Bekaert demonstrates that organic constituents are unlikely to be 
present in the waste. Furthermore, the organic analysis submitted 
indicated only trace levels of these three constituents. In any case, 
the Agency notes that if the total levels (0.120, < 1.00, 0.008 mg/kg, 
in respective order) of these trace constituents were evaluated using 
the EPACML (conservatively assuming the total concentration of the 
constituents would leach), the compliance levels (.00125, < 0.0104, 
0.0000842 mg/l) at the theoretical compliance point would still be well 
below health-based levels (20, 2, 0.005 mg/l, in respective order).
    As reported in Table 1, reactive cyanide and reactive sulfide were 
not detected in Bekaert's petitioned waste. The detection limits are 
less than 0.050 mg/kg and less than 10 mg/kg, respectively. These 
detection limit concentrations are below the EPA's interim standards of 
250 and 500 ppm, respectively. See Interim Agency Thresholds for Toxic 
Gas Generation, July 12, 1985, internal Agency Memorandum in the RCRA 
public docket. Therefore, reactive cyanide and reactive sulfide levels 
are not of concern.
    Complexed cyanide was identified in one of the five samples 
analyzed at a total concentration of 0.31 mg/kg and at a leachable 
(TCLP extract) concentration of 0.030 mg/1. The leachable amount found 
in the one sample of waste is below the appropriate health-base

[[Page 32751]]

number of 0.2 mg/1 (see docket) even without considering the dilution 
effects of the fate and transport of the constituent. Therefore, since 
Bekaert does not use cyanide in any of their processes and the 
complexed cyanide was identified in only one sample at concentrations 
below the health-based concentration, complexed cyanide is not 
considered of concern.
    The EPA concluded, after reviewing Bekaert's processes, that no 
other hazardous constituents of concern, other than those tested for, 
are likely to be present or formed as reaction products or by-products 
in Bekaert's waste proposed for exclusion. In addition, on the basis of 
explanations and analytical data provided by Bekaert, pursuant to 
Sec. 260.22, the EPA concludes that the waste does not exhibit any of 
the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. See 
Sec. 261.21, Sec. 261.22, and Sec. 261.23, respectively.
    During the evaluation of Bekaert's petition, the 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 dispersion in particular, the EPA believes that exposure to 
airborne contaminants from Bekaert's petitioned waste is unlikely. The 
EPA evaluated the potential hazards resulting from the unlikely 
scenario of airborne exposure to hazardous constituents released from 
Bekaert's waste in an open landfill. The results of this worst-case 
analysis indicated that there is no substantial present or potential 
hazard to human health from airborne exposure to constituents from 
Bekaert's petitioned waste. A description of the EPA's assessment of 
the potential impact of Bekaert's waste, with regard to airborne 
dispersion of waste contaminants, is presented in the RCRA public 
docket for today's proposed rule.
    The EPA also considered the potential impact of the petitioned 
waste via a surface water route. The EPA believes that containment 
structures at municipal solid waste landfills can effectively control 
surface water run-off. Subtitle D regulations (see 56 FR 50978, October 
9, 1991) prohibit pollutant discharges into surface waters. 
Furthermore, the concentrations of any hazardous constituents dissolved 
in the runoff will tend to be lower than the levels in the TCLP 
leachate analyses reported in today's notice, due to the aggressive 
acid medium used for extraction in the TCLP test. The EPA believes 
that, in general, leachate derived from the waste is unlikely to enter 
a surface water body directly without first travelling through the 
saturated subsurface zone where further dilution and 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 extraction data shows that the metals that might be released from 
Bekaert's waste to surface water would be likely to remain undissolved 
or leach in concentrations that would be below health-based levels of 
concern. Finally, any transported constituents would be further diluted 
in the receiving surface water body.
    Based on the reasons discussed above, the EPA believes that 
contamination of surface water through run-off from the waste disposal 
area is very unlikely. Nevertheless, the EPA evaluated potential 
impacts on surface water if Bekaert's waste were released from a 
municipal solid waste landfill through run-off and erosion. See, the 
RCRA public docket for today's proposed rule. The estimated levels of 
the hazardous constituents of concern in surface water would be well 
below health-based levels for human health, as well as below the EPA 
Chronic Water Quality Criteria for aquatic organisms (USEPA, OWRS, 
1987). The EPA, therefore, concluded that Bekaert's petitioned waste is 
not a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the 
environment via the surface water exposure pathway.

E. Conclusion

    The EPA has reviewed the sampling procedures used by Bekaert and 
has determined that they satisfy the EPA criteria for collecting 
representative samples. The data submitted in support of the petition 
demonstrates, after careful evaluation, that constituents in Bekaert's 
waste are present at the compliance point below the health-based levels 
used in the delisting decision-making. The EPA believes that Bekaert 
has successfully demonstrated that the petitioned waste is non-
hazardous.
    The EPA, therefore, proposes to grant an exclusion to Bekaert Steel 
Corporation, located in Rogers, Arkansas, for the petitioned waste 
described in its petition as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006. The EPA's 
decision to exclude this waste is based on descriptions of the process 
from which the petitioned waste is derived, descriptions of Bekaert's 
wastewater treatment process, and characterization of the petitioned 
waste. If the proposed rule is finalized, the petitioned waste will no 
longer be subject to regulation under Parts 262 through 268 and the 
permitting standards of Part 270.
    If made final, the proposed exclusion will apply only to 1,250 
cubic yards of petitioned waste generated annually, on a calendar year 
basis, through operation of Bekaert's wastewater treatment filter 
press. The facility would be required to obtain a new exclusion if 
either its manufacturing or treatment processes are significantly 
altered such that an adverse change in waste composition (for example, 
significantly higher levels of hazardous constituents) or increase in 
volume occur. Accordingly, the facility would be required to file a new 
petition for the altered waste. Additionally, the facility must treat 
waste generated either in excess of 1,250 cubic yards per year or 
generated from changed processes as hazardous until a new exclusion is 
granted.
    Although management of the waste covered by this petition would be 
removed from Subtitle C jurisdiction upon final promulgation of an 
exclusion, the generator of a delisted waste must either treat, store, 
or dispose of the waste in an on-site facility, or ensure that the 
waste is delivered to an off-site storage, treatment, or disposal 
facility, either of which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a 
State to manage municipal or industrial solid waste. Alternatively, the 
delisted waste may be delivered to a facility that beneficially uses or 
reuses, or legitimately recycles or reclaims the waste, or treats the 
waste prior to such beneficial use, reuse, recycling, or reclamation.

F. Annual Testing

    If a final exclusion is granted, the petitioner will be required to 
demonstrate, on an annual basis, that the characteristics of the 
petitioned waste remain as originally described. In order to confirm 
that the characteristics of the waste do not change significantly, the 
facility must, on an annual basis, analyze a representative composite 
sample for the constituents listed in Sec. 261.24 as well as antimony, 
copper, nickel and zinc using the method specified therein. Sampling 
and analysis must be completed by July 1 of each year. Each year's 
analytical results (including quality control information) must be 
compiled, certified according to 260.22(i)(12), maintained on-site for 
a minimum of five years, and made available for inspection upon request 
by any employee or representative of EPA or the State of Arkansas. 
Failure to maintain the required records on site will be considered by 
EPA, at its discretion, sufficient basis to revoke the exclusion to the 
extent directed by EPA.

[[Page 32752]]

    The purpose of this testing requirement is to ensure that the 
quality of the petitioned waste remains as originally described by the 
petitioner. The Agency believes that the data obtained will assist EPA 
or the State in determining whether the petitioner's manufacturing 
processes have been significantly altered, or if the waste is more 
variable than originally described by the petitioner. The Agency also 
believes that the annual retesting of the petitioned waste is not 
overly burdensome to the facility and notes that these data will assist 
the facility in complying with Sec. 262.11(c) which requires generators 
to determine whether their wastes are hazardous, as defined by the 
Toxicity Characteristic (see 40 CFR 261.24).

III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion

    This proposed exclusion, if promulgated, would be issued under the 
Federal (RCRA) delisting program. States, however, are allowed to 
impose their own, non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more 
stringent than EPA's, 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. Since a 
petitioner's waste may be regulated under a dual system (both Federal 
(RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) programs), petitioners are urged to contact 
their State regulatory authorities to determine the current status of 
their wastes under State law.
    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, would not apply in those authorized States. If the 
petitioned waste will be transported to any State with delisting 
authorization, Bekaert must obtain delisting authorization from that 
State before the waste may be managed as nonhazardous in that State.

IV. Effective Date

    This rule, if made final, will become effective immediately upon 
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 
persons generating hazardous wastes. 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, 
the 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, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.Sec. 553(d).

V. Regulatory Impact

    Under Executive Order 12866, the EPA must conduct an ``assessment 
of the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' 
regulatory actions. This proposal to grant an exclusion is not 
significant, since its effect, if promulgated, would be to reduce the 
overall costs and economic impact of the EPA's hazardous waste 
management regulations. This reduction would be achieved by excluding 
waste generated at a specific facility from the EPA's lists of 
hazardous wastes, thereby enabling this facility to treat its waste as 
non-hazardous. There is no additional impact due to today's rule. 
Therefore, 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

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Secs. 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 that 
describes the impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., 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 any small entities.
    This rule, if promulgated, will not have any adverse economic 
impact on any small entities since its effect would be to reduce the 
overall costs of the EPA's hazardous waste regulations and would be 
limited to one facility. 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 (Pub. L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. Sec. 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, 
the 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, the EPA must identify and 
consider alternatives, including the least costly, most cost-effective 
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the 
rule. The 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 the 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 the 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 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.


[[Page 32753]]


    Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).

    Dated: June 11, 1996.
Jane N. Saginaw,
Regional Administrator.

    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 Sec. 260.20 and 
Sec. 260.22

                                 Table 2.--Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Facility                           Address                            Waste description             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
Bekaert Steel Corporation.......  Rogers, Arkansas................  Wastewater treatment sludge (EPA Hazardous  
                                                                     Waste No. F006) generated from             
                                                                     electroplating operations (at a maximum    
                                                                     annual rate of 1,250 cubic yards to be     
                                                                     measured on a calendar year basis) after   
                                                                     [insert publication date of the final      
                                                                     rule]. In order to confirm that the        
                                                                     characteristics of the waste do not change 
                                                                     significantly, the facility must, on an    
                                                                     annual basis, before July 1 of each year,  
                                                                     analyze a representative composite sample  
                                                                     for the constituents listed in 261.24 as   
                                                                     well as antimony, copper, nickel, and zinc 
                                                                     using the method specified therein. The    
                                                                     annual analytical results, including       
                                                                     quality control information, must be       
                                                                     compiled, certified according to Sec.      
                                                                     260.22(i)(12) of this chapter, maintained  
                                                                     on site for a minimum of five years, and   
                                                                     made available for inspection upon request 
                                                                     of any employee or representative of EPA or
                                                                     the State of Arkansas. Failure to maintain 
                                                                     the required documents on site will be     
                                                                     considered by EPA, at its discretion,      
                                                                     sufficient basis to revoke the exclusion to
                                                                     the extent directed by EPA.                
                                                                    Notification Requirements:                  
                                                                    Bekaert Steel Corporation must provide a one-
                                                                     time written notification to any State     
                                                                     Regulatory Agency to which or through which
                                                                     the delisted waste described above will be 
                                                                     transported for disposal at least 60 days  
                                                                     prior to the commencement of such          
                                                                     activities. Failure to provide such a      
                                                                     notification will result in a violation of 
                                                                     the delisting petition and a possible      
                                                                     revocation of the decision.                
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 96-15884 Filed 6-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P