Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW-FRL-6206-2]

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 Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa),

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to exclude (or ``delist''), on a one-time

basis, certain solid wastes generated by its wastewater treatment plant

and interred at the Stolle Landfill located in Sidney, Ohio from the

lists of hazardous wastes contained in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261.

This landfill was used exclusively by Stolle Corporation, a wholly-

owned subsidiary of Alcoa, for disposal of its wastewater treatment

plant (WWTP) filter cake from 1981 to 1992. This action responds to a

``delisting'' petition submitted under Sec. 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 Sec. 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

excluded from the requirements of the hazardous waste regulations under

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

ministrator 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

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 February 4, 1999. 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 Robert Springer, Director, Waste, Pesticides and

Toxics Division, at the address below, by January 20, 1999. The request

must contain the information prescribed in Sec. 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Two copies of any comments should be sent to Peter

Ramanauskas, Waste Management Branch (DW-8J), U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W.

Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.

Requests for a hearing should be addressed to Robert Springer,

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 4:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call Peter Ramanauskas at (312)

886-7890 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 document, contact Peter Ramanauskas at the address above or at

o, IL 60604, and is

available for viewing from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call Peter Ramanauskas at (312)

886-7890 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 document, contact Peter Ramanauskas at the address above or at

(312) 886-7890.

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 Secs. 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 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. For this reason, Secs. 260.20 and 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 its wastes excluded, a petitioner must show that wastes

generated at its facility do not meet any of the criteria for which the

wastes were listed. See Sec. 260.22(a)(1) and the background documents

for the listed wastes

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 Sec. 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

Alcoa'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

Sec. 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, EPA tentatively

agreed with the petitioner, pending public comment, that the waste is

non-hazardous 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

riginal 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 if 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 such information

gathered to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground water,

surface water, air) for hazardous constituents present in the

petitioned waste. As Alcoa's waste is presently landfilled, EPA

determined 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 and to determine the

potential impact of Alcoa's petitioned waste on human health and the

environment. Specifically, EPA used the 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 down gradient from the disposal site. The calculated

receptor well concentrations were then compared directly to the health-

based levels at an assumed risk of 10-6 used in delisting

decision-making for the hazardous constituents of concern

e and the

maximum reported extract concentrations as inputs to estimate the

constituent concentrations in the ground water at a hypothetical

receptor well down gradient from the disposal site. The calculated

receptor well concentrations were then compared directly to the health-

based levels 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 the petitioned waste, 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 worst-case 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 which can provide

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. To support the delisting of the

Stolle WWTP filter cake described in its petition as EPA Hazardous

Waste Numbers F006 and F019, groundwater samples expected to be

representative of groundwater resources in the immediate vicinity of

the Stolle landfill were used to assess impacts to groundwater.

From the evaluation of the delisting petition, proposed maximum

allowable leachate concentrations were developed for a list of

constituents by back-calculating from the delisting health-based levels

through the proposed fate and transport model

s expected to be

representative of groundwater resources in the immediate vicinity of

the Stolle landfill were used to assess impacts to groundwater.

From the evaluation of the delisting petition, proposed maximum

allowable leachate concentrations were developed for a list of

constituents by back-calculating from the delisting health-based levels

through the proposed fate and transport model.

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

Aluminum Company of America, Alcoa Corporate Center, 201 Isabella

Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15212-5858

A. Petition for Exclusion

Stolle Products [a.k.a. Stolle Plant #2, formerly a division of

Stolle Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Aluminum Company

of America (Alcoa); currently a division of American Trim, L.L.C.],

located at 1501 Michigan Street in Sidney, Ohio, fabricates, assembles,

and finishes aluminum and steel automotive, appliance, and decorative

products. The metal finishing operations, which consist of sulfuric

acid anodizing, chemical conversion coating, and painting, generate

wastewaters that are treated in an on-site wastewater treatment plant

(WWTP) which ultimately generates a filter cake. Through 1987, metal

finishing operations also included electroplating with rinsewater from

the electroplating process discharged to the WWTP. The 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;

operations also included electroplating with rinsewater from

the electroplating process discharged to the WWTP. The 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-aluminum plating on carbon steel; (5) cleaning/stripping

associated with tin, zinc and aluminum plating on carbon steel; and (6)

chemical etching and milling of aluminum.'' and F019--``Wastewater

treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum

except from zirconium phosphating in aluminum can washing when such

phosphating is an exclusive conversion coating process.'' (40 CFR

261.31). F006 waste is listed for cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel,

and complexed cyanide and F019 waste is listed for hexavalent chromium

and complexed cyanide (40 CFR 261 Appendix VII).

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. 6921(f), and Sec. 260.22.

B. Background

On May 13, 1996, Alcoa petitioned EPA to exclude the estimated

total volume of 16,772 cubic yards of WWTP filter press sludge

previously disposed of in the Stolle landfill from the list of

hazardous wastes contained in Sec. 261.31 because it believed that the

petitioned waste did not meet any of the criteria under which the waste

was listed and that there were no additional constituents or factors

that could cause the waste to be hazardous. Subsequently, Alcoa

provided additional information to complete its petition

previously disposed of in the Stolle landfill from the list of

hazardous wastes contained in Sec. 261.31 because it believed that the

petitioned waste did not meet any of the criteria under which the waste

was listed and that there were no additional constituents or factors

that could cause the waste to be hazardous. Subsequently, Alcoa

provided additional information to complete its petition. In support of

its petition, Alcoa submitted detailed descriptions of its

manufacturing and wastewater treatment processes, a schematic diagram

of the wastewater treatment process, and analytical testing results for

representative samples of the petitioned waste, including (1) the

hazardous characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity;

(2) total oil and grease; (3) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching

Procedure (TCLP, SW-846 Method 1311) analyses for volatile and semi-

volatile organic compounds, herbicides, pesticides, polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs), metals, fluoride, and cyanide (using deionized water

instead of acid); (4) total sulfide, total cyanide and total fluoride;

(5) total constituent analysis for 40 CFR 264 Appendix IX metals (plus

hexavalent chromium for which F006 and F019 wastes are listed), VOCs,

SVOCs, pesticides and herbicides, and PCBs.

Between 1981 and 1992, the facility's metal finishing operations,

which consisted of sulfuric acid anodizing, chemical conversion

coating, painting, and/or electroplating (through 1987) generated

wastewaters which were routed to and treated in an on-site WWTP. The

resulting filter cake was disposed of in the Stolle landfill. Since

October 1992, filter cake generated during Stolle Plant #2 WWTP

operation has been collected in roll-off containers for disposal off

site at a RCRA Subtitle C permitted facility.

The Stolle Plant #2 WWTP is an industrial wastewater pretreatment

facility which discharges treated water to the City of Sidney sanitary

sewer system for final treatment in a Publicly Owned Treatment Works

(POTW)

e

October 1992, filter cake generated during Stolle Plant #2 WWTP

operation has been collected in roll-off containers for disposal off

site at a RCRA Subtitle C permitted facility.

The Stolle Plant #2 WWTP is an industrial wastewater pretreatment

facility which discharges treated water to the City of Sidney sanitary

sewer system for final treatment in a Publicly Owned Treatment Works

(POTW). Industrial waste streams produced during Stolle Plant #2

manufacturing processes and discharged to the WWTP may be generally

characterized as (1) anodizing process rinse waters containing

suspended and dissolved metal salts, acids, alkalies, surfactants and

organic contaminants; (2) anodizing process dumps which include

concentrated acids and alkalies containing high levels of dissolved

solids; (3) acid and alkali cleaner dumps and rinse water containing

surfactants, wetting agents, phosphates, and organic contaminants; (4)

hexavalent and total chromium wastes; (5) spent deionizer regenerants

and softener backwash water containing dissolved solids, acids, and

caustics; (6) spent dyes and; (7) miscellaneous plant wastes.

Treatment at the WWTP is a continuous operation. From 1981 to 1992

industrial wastewater discharged from Stolle Plant #2 would flow to a

modulation lagoon which functioned as a holding/surge basin prior to

treatment in the WWTP. The lagoon was used to equalize batch discharges

and peak loading such that wastewater could be fed to the WWTP at a

constant flow rate to maximize efficient operation of the WWTP.

Wastewater gravity-flowed from the lagoon to the lime neutralization

tank. Spent acid anodizing solution from the anodizing process, which

was stored in a 20,000 gallon waste sulfuric acid tank, was slowly

metered into the wastewater stream as it flowed from the lagoon to the

lime neutralization tank. Lime slurry was used for neutralization and

metals complexing to form metal hydroxide

WWTP.

Wastewater gravity-flowed from the lagoon to the lime neutralization

tank. Spent acid anodizing solution from the anodizing process, which

was stored in a 20,000 gallon waste sulfuric acid tank, was slowly

metered into the wastewater stream as it flowed from the lagoon to the

lime neutralization tank. Lime slurry was used for neutralization and

metals complexing to form metal hydroxide. The mixture overflowed the

lime neutralization tank and gravity-flowed to two Lamella settlers

consisting of Lamella clarifiers and flocculators. In the clarifiers,

the metal hydroxides precipitated, flocculated, and settled. Settling

properties were improved through polymer addition to the clarifiers.

Treated effluent was then discharged to the Sidney sanitary sewer

system.

The sludge precipitated in the Lamella clarifiers was pumped to a

sludge thickener for solids concentration prior to dewatering. The

thickener supernatant (overflow) flowed by gravity directly to the

effluent discharge piping, while the thickened sludge flowed by gravity

to a sludge pit. Sludge was drawn from the sludge pit and pumped to a

plate-and-frame filter press (formerly a belt filter press from 1981 to

1983) for dewatering. The resulting filter cake (30 to 40 percent

solids) was disposed of in Stolle's on-site landfill.

The landfill contains three trenches averaging approximately 570

feet in length by 15 feet in width with a 4 foot fill depth and five

area fill cells of varying dimensions with an 8 foot fill depth. The

trench and cell floors are comprised of indigenous silt/clay having a

permeability range of 8.8 x 10-9 cm/sec to 1.2 x

10-8 cm/sec.

Once filled, all trenches and cells (except Cell #5) were capped

with approximately two feet of well-compacted soil of low permeability

and were graded to prevent surface water ponding. A vegetated cover

consisting of native grass was established. Cell #5 was closed in 1993

before it was completely full

igenous silt/clay having a

permeability range of 8.8 x 10-9 cm/sec to 1.2 x

10-8 cm/sec.

Once filled, all trenches and cells (except Cell #5) were capped

with approximately two feet of well-compacted soil of low permeability

and were graded to prevent surface water ponding. A vegetated cover

consisting of native grass was established. Cell #5 was closed in 1993

before it was completely full. The closure of Cell #5 began with

placement of 220 tons of Type C rock fill in the cell followed by

compaction to assure a stable subgrade prior to placing additional

lifts of soil. Forty-eight tons of pozzalime were added to the cell

bottom for additional stabilization. The remaining cell area was filled

with 3,753 cubic yards of fill material in 6 to 8 inch lifts and

compacted to at least 95% of standard proctor and plus or minus 3% of

optimum moisture content as defined by ASTM D698 and Alcoa Engineering

Standards.

Construction of an Ohio EPA approved landfill cap was completed in

October, 1996. The engineered cap system consists of a 24-inch

compacted clay layer immediately above the waste material. A 60 mil

flexible membrane liner (FML) was placed over the compacted clay layer.

A drainage layer consisting of high density polyethylene (HDPE)

drainage netting and woven filtration geotextile was installed above

the FML. The final cover consists of 24 inches of native soil obtained

from an on-site borrow area followed by 6 inches of topsoil which was

vegetated with indigenous grass. The cap system includes surface and

subsurface drainage controls.

Alcoa submitted a signed Certification of Accuracy and

Responsibility statement presented in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12). The EPA

reviews a petitioner's estimates and, on occasion, has requested a

petitioner to re-evaluate the estimated waste volume. EPA accepts

Alcoa's estimate.

C. Waste Analysis

s

vegetated with indigenous grass. The cap system includes surface and

subsurface drainage controls.

Alcoa submitted a signed Certification of Accuracy and

Responsibility statement presented in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12). The EPA

reviews a petitioner's estimates and, on occasion, has requested a

petitioner to re-evaluate the estimated waste volume. EPA accepts

Alcoa's estimate.

C. Waste Analysis

Alcoa performed a full 40 CFR 264 Appendix IX analytical scan and

other analyses on the filter cake samples from the Stolle landfill, as

well as on the groundwater samples from the monitoring well network

associated with the landfill, less dioxins and furans (combustion or

incineration processes were non-existent at Stolle Plant #2;

consequently, dioxins and furans were not expected to be present in the

filter cake and were not included on the analytical parameter list).

For Alcoa's petition, one filter cake composite sample was

collected from each landfill sector (i.e. trench and cell). By

collecting a composite sample from each landfill sector, the results of

filter cake sampling are representative of filter cake variability over

time since each

trench and cell contains filter cake generated over a one to two year

period. One composite filter cake sample was prepared for each of the

eight landfill sectors. Composite samples consisting of material

retrieved from four soil borings per sector were analyzed for Appendix

IX constituents and other constituents. Composite filter cake samples

collected from landfill sectors 1, 3, 6, and 8 were not analyzed for

pesticides/PCBs or herbicides as per agreement with the EPA

ne composite filter cake sample was prepared for each of the

eight landfill sectors. Composite samples consisting of material

retrieved from four soil borings per sector were analyzed for Appendix

IX constituents and other constituents. Composite filter cake samples

collected from landfill sectors 1, 3, 6, and 8 were not analyzed for

pesticides/PCBs or herbicides as per agreement with the EPA.

To quantify the filter cake total constituent and leachate

concentrations, Alcoa used the following SW-846 Methods: 6010 for

antimony, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, nickel,

silver, tin, vanadium, and zinc; 7060 for arsenic; 7421 for lead; 7471

for total mercury and 7470 for leachate mercury; 7740 for selenium;

7841 for thallium; 3060/7196 for hexavalent chromium; 9010 for cyanide

(total and complexed); 9030 for sulfide; 8080 for PCBs; 8080/8140 for

pesticides; 8150 for herbicides; 8240 for volatile organic compounds;

and 8270 for semi-volatile organic compounds. EPA Method 340.2 was used

to determine fluoride concentration. Alcoa used these methods along

with the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW-846

Method 1311) to determine leachate concentrations of metals, cyanide,

fluoride, herbicides, pesticides, PCBs, volatile organic compounds, and

semi-volatile organic compounds. Using SW-846 Methods 9070/9071, Alcoa

determined that the samples of the petitioned waste had oil and grease

contents below detectable limits. If the total oil & grease

concentrations had been greater than or equal to 1%, the Oily Waste

Extraction Procedure, Method 1330, would have been required.

Characteristic testing of the filter cake samples included analysis of

ignitability (SW-846 Method 1010) and corrosivity (SW-846 Method 9045).

Samples were not analyzed for reactive cyanide and reactive sulfide as

total concentrations of cyanide and sulfide did not exceed 250 ppm and

500 ppm respectively

equal to 1%, the Oily Waste

Extraction Procedure, Method 1330, would have been required.

Characteristic testing of the filter cake samples included analysis of

ignitability (SW-846 Method 1010) and corrosivity (SW-846 Method 9045).

Samples were not analyzed for reactive cyanide and reactive sulfide as

total concentrations of cyanide and sulfide did not exceed 250 ppm and

500 ppm respectively.

Table 1 presents the maximum total and leachate concentrations for

15 metals, total cyanide, total sulfide, and fluoride.

The detection limits presented in Table 1 represent the lowest

concentrations quantifiable by Alcoa 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

Filter Cake

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

Total

constituent TCLP leachate

Inorganic constituents analyses (mg/ analyses (mg/

kg) l)

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

Antimony................................ 25.0 -6cm/sec, was used for

embankment construction. In addition, as a requirement by the OEPA,

Stolle was required to construct an underdrain system for collection

and discharge of surface water to prevent ponding. Since 1984, all

water collected via the underdrain system has been released to the

Sidney sanitary sewer system for treatment. EPA believes that

containment structures at the Stolle landfill, including the engineered

cap, can effectively control surface water run-off. 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

r treatment. EPA believes that

containment structures at the Stolle landfill, including the engineered

cap, can effectively control surface water run-off. 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 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

constituents that may be mobilized in surface water, as well as ground

water. The reported TCLP data shows that the constituents that might

leach from Alcoa's waste to surface water are likely to be below the

health-based levels of concern. EPA, therefore, concludes that Alcoa'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 Alcoa's wastewater treatment process,

and analytical characterization of the petitioned waste, EPA believes

that Alcoa has successfully demonstrated that the petitioned waste is

not hazardous. EPA, therefore, proposes to grant a one-time exclusion

to Alcoa for its WWTP filter cake described in its petition as EPA

Hazardous Waste Nos. F006 and F019. If made final, the proposed

exclusion will apply only to the approximately 16,772 cubic yards of

petitioned waste present in the Stolle landfill.

III. Effect on State Authorizations

monstrated that the petitioned waste is

not hazardous. EPA, therefore, proposes to grant a one-time exclusion

to Alcoa for its WWTP filter cake described in its petition as EPA

Hazardous Waste Nos. F006 and F019. If made final, the proposed

exclusion will apply only to the approximately 16,772 cubic yards of

petitioned waste present in the Stolle landfill.

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 (e.g., Louisiana and Illinois) 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, Alcoa must obtain delisting authorization from

that State before the waste may be managed as nonhazardous in the

State.

IV. Effective Date

u 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, Alcoa 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 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,

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 U.S.C. 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 non-hazardous. There is no additional

impact, therefore, due to today's proposed rule

ts 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 non-hazardous. 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.

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 record-keeping 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 USC 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB

Control Number 2050-0053.

VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

ory flexibility

analysis.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

Information collection and record-keeping 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 USC 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

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. 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, and Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

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

Dated: November 24, 1998.

Robert Springer,

Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR Part 261 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

1. The authority citation for Part 261 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.

2. In Table 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:

reamble, 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 Secs. 260.20 and

260.22.

Table 1.--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources

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

Facility Address Waste description

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

* * * * * *

*

Aluminum Company of America.......... 750 Norcold Ave., 1. Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludges

Sidney, Ohio 45365. generated from the chemical conversion coating

of aluminum (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019) and

WWTP sludges generated from electroplating

operations (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006) and

stored in an on-site landfill. This is a one-

time exclusion for approximately 16,772 cubic

yards of landfilled WWTP filter cake. This

exclusion was published on [insert publication

date of the final rule].

2. The constituent concentrations measured in

the TCLP extract may not exceed the following

levels (mg/L): Arsenic--5; Barium--200;

Chromium--10; Cobalt--210; Copper--140; Nickel--

70; Vanadium--20; Zinc--1000; Fluoride--400;

Acetone--400; Methylene Chloride--0.5; Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)phthalate--0.6.

3

filter cake. This

exclusion was published on [insert publication

date of the final rule].

2. The constituent concentrations measured in

the TCLP extract may not exceed the following

levels (mg/L): Arsenic--5; Barium--200;

Chromium--10; Cobalt--210; Copper--140; Nickel--

70; Vanadium--20; Zinc--1000; Fluoride--400;

Acetone--400; Methylene Chloride--0.5; Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)phthalate--0.6.

3. (a) If, anytime after disposal of the

delisted waste, Alcoa possesses or is otherwise

made aware of any environmental data (including

but not limited to leachate data or groundwater

monitoring data) or any other data relevant to

the delisted waste indicating that any

constituent identified in Condition (2) is at a

level in the leachate higher than the delisting

level established in Condition (2), or is at a

level in the ground water or soil higher than

the health based level, then Alcoa must report

such data, in writing, to the Regional

Administrator within 10 days of first

possessing or being made aware of that data.

(b) Based on the information described in

paragraph (a) and any other information

received from any source, the Regional

Administrator will make a preliminary

determination as to whether the reported

information requires Agency action to protect

human health or the environment. Further action

may include suspending or revoking the

exclusion, or other appropriate response

necessary to protect human health and the

environment.

in

paragraph (a) and any other information

received from any source, the Regional

Administrator will make a preliminary

determination as to whether the reported

information requires Agency action to protect

human health or the environment. Further action

may include suspending or revoking the

exclusion, or other appropriate response

necessary to protect human health and the

environment.

(c) If the Regional Administrator determines

that the reported information does require

Agency action, the Regional Administrator will

notify the facility in writing of the actions

the Regional Administrator believes are

necessary to protect human health and the

environment. The notice shall include a

statement of the proposed action and a

statement providing the facility with an

opportunity to present information as to why

the proposed Agency action is not necessary or

to suggest an alternative action. The facility

shall have 10 days from the date of the

Regional Administrator's notice to present such

information.

(d) Following the receipt of information from

the facility described in paragraph (c) or (if

no information is presented under paragraph (c)

the initial receipt of information described in

paragraph (a)), the Regional Administrator will

issue a final written determination describing

the Agency actions that are necessary to

protect human health or the environment. Any

required action described in the Regional

Administrator's determination shall become

effective immediately, unless the Regional

Administrator provides otherwise.

* * * * * *

*

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

[FR Doc. 98-33710 Filed 12-18-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P