[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 144 (Thursday, July 26, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38969-38982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-18533]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-7003-4]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Amendment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
[[Page 38970]]
ACTION: Proposed amendment and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, also ``the Agency''
or ``we'' in this preamble) is proposing to modify an exclusion (or
``delisting'') from the lists of hazardous waste, previously granted to
Geological Reclamation Operations and Waste Systems, Inc. (GROWS) in
Morrisville, Pennsylvania. This action responds to a petition for
amendment submitted by GROWS to increase the maximum annual volume
covered by its current exclusion.
The Agency is basing its tentative decision to grant the petition
for amendment on an evaluation of specific information provided by the
petitioner. This tentative decision, if finalized, would increase the
annual volume of waste conditionally excluded from the requirements of
the hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
DATES: EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed amendment. We
will accept comments on this proposal until September 10, 2001.
Comments postmarked after the close of the comment period will be
stamped ``late.'' These late comments may not be considered in
formulating a final decision.
Any person may request a hearing on this tentative decision to
grant the petition for amendment by filing a request by August 10,
2001. The request must contain the information prescribed in 40 CFR
260.20(d).
ADDRESSES: Please send two copies of your comments to David M.
Friedman, Technical Support Branch (3WC11), U.S. EPA Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103-2029.
Your request for a hearing should be addressed to James J. Burke,
Director, Waste and Chemicals Management Division (3WC00), U.S. EPA
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103-2029.
The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule is located at the
offices of U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA,
19103-2029, and is available for your viewing from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. Please call
David M. Friedman at (215) 814-3395 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, please contact David M. Friedman at the address above or
at (215) 814-3395.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Background
A. What Laws and Regulations Give EPA the Authority To Delist
Waste?
B. What Is Currently Delisted At GROWS?
C. What Does GROWS Request in Its Petition For Amendment?
II. Disposition of Petition Amendment
A. What Information Did GROWS Submit To Support Its Petition For
Amendment?
B. What Method Did EPA Use To Evaluate Risk?
1. How did EPA evaluate risk when it reviewed the 1986 GROWS'
petition?
2. How did EPA evaluate risk for this proposed amendment?
C. What Conclusion Did EPA Reach?
III. Conditions for Exclusion
A. What Are the Maximum Allowable Concentrations of Hazardous
Constituents?
B. How Frequently Must GROWS Test the Waste and How Must It Be
Managed Until It Is Disposed?
C. What Must GROWS Do If the Process Changes?
D. What Data Must GROWS Submit?
E. What Happens If GROWS Fails To Meet the Conditions of the
Exclusion?
IV. Effect on State Authorization
V. Effective Date
VI. Administrative Requirements
I. Background
A. What Laws and Regulations Give EPA the Authority To Delist Waste?
EPA published amended lists of hazardous wastes from non-specific
and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its final and
interim final regulations implementing Section 3001 of RCRA. These
lists have been amended several times, and are found at 40 CFR 261.31
and 261.32.
We list these wastes as hazardous because: (1) They typically and
frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous
wastes identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261 (i.e., ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity), or (2) they meet the criteria
for listing contained in 40 CFR 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, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion
procedure which allows a person to demonstrate that a specific listed
waste from a particular generating facility should not be regulated as
a hazardous waste, and should, therefore, be delisted.
According to 40 CFR 260.22(a)(1), in order to have these wastes
excluded a petitioner must first show that wastes generated at its
facility do not meet any of the criteria for which the wastes were
listed. The criteria which we use to list wastes are found in 40 CFR
261.11. An explanation of how these criteria apply to a particular
waste is contained in the background document for that listed waste.
In addition to the criteria that we considered when we originally
listed the waste, we are also required by the provisions of 40 CFR
260.22(a)(2) to consider any other factors (including additional
constituents), if there is a reasonable basis to believe that these
factors could cause the waste to be hazardous.
In a delisting petition, the petitioner must demonstrate that the
waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics
defined in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261 (i.e., ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity), and must present sufficient
information for EPA to determine whether the waste contains any other
constituents at hazardous levels.
A generator remains obligated under RCRA to confirm that its waste
remains non-hazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics
defined in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261 even if EPA has delisted its
waste.
We also define residues from the treatment, storage, or disposal of
listed hazardous wastes and mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes
as hazardous wastes. (See 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i),
referred to as the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively.) These wastes are also eligible for exclusion but remain
hazardous wastes until delisted.
B. What Is Currently Delisted at GROWS?
GROWS operates a commercial landfill and wastewater treatment plant
in Morrisville, Pennsylvania. On November 13, 1986, GROWS petitioned
EPA under the provisions in 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 to exclude from
hazardous waste regulation a wastewater treatment sludge filter cake
derived from the treatment of landfill leachate. This leachate
originates, in part, from its closed landfill containing a mixture of
solid wastes and hazardous wastes. The wastewater treatment plant also
treats non-hazardous leachate from non-hazardous waste landfills.
In support of its petition, GROWS submitted sufficient information
to EPA to allow us to determine that the waste was not hazardous based
upon the criteria for which it was listed and that
[[Page 38971]]
no other hazardous constituents were present in the waste at levels of
regulatory concern.
A full description of these wastes and the Agency's evaluation of
the 1986 GROWS' petition are contained in the Proposed Rule and Request
for Comments published in the Federal Register on September 17, 1990
(55 FR 38090).
After evaluating public comment on the Proposed Rule, we published
a final decision in the Federal Register on August 20, 1991, (56 FR
41286) to exclude GROWS' wastewater treatment sludge filter cake
derived from the treatment of EPA Hazardous Waste No. F039 (multi-
source leachate) from the list of hazardous wastes found in 40 CFR
261.31.
EPA's final decision in 1991 was conditioned on the volume of waste
identified in the 1986 GROWS' petition. Specifically, the exclusion
granted by EPA is limited to a maximum annual volume of 1000 cubic
yards. Any additional waste volume in excess of this limit generated by
GROWS in a calendar year was to have been managed as hazardous waste.
C. What Does GROWS Request in Its Petition for Amendment?
As a result of an increase in wastewater treatment sludge filter
cake production associated with an increase in the efficiency of the
wastewater treatment operation, GROWS petitioned EPA on June 12, 2000
for an amendment to its August 20, 1991 final exclusion. In its
petition, GROWS requested an increase in the maximum annual waste
volume that is covered by its exclusion from 1000 cubic yards to 2000
cubic yards.
II. Disposition of Petition Amendment
A. What Information Did GROWS Submit To Support its Petition for
Amendment?
The exclusion which we granted to GROWS on August 20, 1991, is a
conditional exclusion. In order for its exclusion to remain effective,
GROWS must verify that its waste meets prescribed delisting levels.
Prior to disposal, GROWS is required to sample each batch of waste
generated over a four week period. Samples must be analyzed for a list
of verification constituents. If the concentration of any verification
constituent exceeds its respective maximum allowable concentration, the
batch must either be retreated until it meets these levels, or managed
and disposed of as a hazardous waste in accordance with Subtitle C of
RCRA.
In order to support its Petition For Amendment, GROWS submitted its
verification testing results from the past two years to EPA. This
submission consisted of the results of twenty-seven (27) analyses
conducted on samples collected for the time period from December 15,
1997, until December 10, 1999.
The verification testing program prescribed by EPA in the August
20, 1991 exclusion requires GROWS to analyze metal constituents using
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), cyanide using a
distilled water leaching procedure, and organics using total
constituent analysis.
The tools used by EPA in its evaluation of petitioned wastes have
changed since the 1986 GROWS' delisting petition was granted. The
changes in the methods used by EPA in evaluation of requests for
exclusions are described below and in section II. B. of this preamble.
In addition to the two most recent years of verification testing
results mentioned above, we also requested that GROWS submit the
results of total constituent analyses for a minimum of four samples for
the inorganic constituents. This was necessary because both total
constituent analysis data and leachate data are now used in assessing
the potential risk from disposal of a petitioned waste, and there is no
reliable way to estimate actual total constituent concentrations of the
inorganic constituents from leachate data. GROWS submitted this
additional information on June 12, 2000, September 21, 2000, and
February 5, 2001.
The maximum total and leachate concentrations for the inorganic
constituents which were found in the verification testing results and
in the additional information provided by GROWS are presented in Table
1.
Table 1.--Maximum Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations \1\ WWTP
Filter Cake
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
constituent TCLP leachate
Inorganic constituents concentration concentration
(mg/kg) (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic................................. 11.6 0.017
Barium.................................. 47.0 0.77
Cadmium................................. 0.5 0.02
Chromium................................ 9.3 0.02
Lead.................................... 8.0 0.65
Mercury................................. 0.3 0.0002
Nickel.................................. 4.0 0.098
Selenium................................ 0.3 0.008
Silver.................................. 0.5 0.02
Cyanide (total)......................... 1.0 0.009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent
found in any one sample. These levels do not necessarily represent the
specific levels found in one sample.
Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the concentration
specified in the table.
The verification testing program specified by the current exclusion
for GROWS requires only total constituent analysis for the organic
constituents but not leachate testing. Leachate testing for organic
constituents was not required at the time that the 1986 GROWS''
petition was being evaluated. Organic constituent mobility was
estimated by modeling rather than testing.
Because the Agency had not yet developed a reliable leachate test
to estimate the migration potential of organic constituents, leachable
concentrations of organic constituents in the waste were estimated
using a model known as the Organic Leachate Model (OLM). The OLM was
based on an empirical relationship involving a waste constituent's
aqueous solubility that was derived from a supporting data base of
waste constituent concentrations and experimentally measured leachate
concentrations. (See 50 FR 48953 for a
[[Page 38972]]
complete description of the model, and 51 FR 41084 for a description of
changes that were made to the model in response to public comment).
The Agency made it clear that the OLM was an interim tool to be
used for this purpose and that it would be replaced when an analytical
organic leaching test was developed.
On March 29, 1990, we promulgated the Toxicity Characteristic Rule
which included the TCLP (61 FR 11798). In the preamble to this Rule, we
stated that it was our intention to use the TCLP in the delisting
program. However, we continued to use the OLM instead of the TCLP in
the evaluation of those petitions (including the GROWS'' petition) that
were then currently being processed.
Because the verification testing program specified by the current
exclusion for GROWS does not require TCLP testing for organic
constituents, we have evaluated its request for an amendment by
calculating theoretical maximum leachate concentrations for the organic
constituents by applying the most conservative assumption.
Analyzing a waste for TCLP constituent concentrations involves
application of the TCLP (a leaching procedure) followed by analysis of
the TCLP leachate for the constituents of concern. For a waste that is
a physical solid (i.e., a waste that does not contain a liquid phase),
the maximum theoretical leachate concentration can be calculated by
dividing the total concentration of the constituent by twenty. This
twenty-fold dilution is part of the TCLP protocol and represents the
liquid to solid ratio employed in the test procedure.
If the TCLP were performed on the actual wastewater treatment
sludge filter cake, the concentration of the constituents in the TCLP
leachate could not exceed the calculated value derived from the
procedure described above. The actual TCLP concentration, if
determined, may be substantially less than the calculated value because
the calculated value assumes that 100 percent of the constituent
leaches from the waste.
The maximum (measured) total and maximum (calculated) leachate
concentrations for all detected organic constituents in GROWS' waste
samples are presented in Table 2.
Table 2.--Maximum Total Constitutent \1\ and Leachate Concentrations
WWTP Filter Cake
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measured total Calculated
constituent TCLP leachate
Organic constituents concentration concentration
(mg/kg) (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone................................. 1.3 0.065
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthlate............... 1.09 0.0545
Carbon Disulfide........................ 0.011 0.00055
Chloroform.............................. 0.12 0.006
Cresol, Total........................... 1.23 0.0615
Ethyl Benzene........................... 0.028 0.0014
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone)........ 1.8 0.09
Methylene Chloride...................... 0.096 0.0048
Napthalene.............................. 0.75 0.0375
Phenol.................................. 2.6 0.13
Xylene.................................. 0.16 0.008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent
found in any one sample. These levels do not necessarily represent the
specific levels found in one sample.
EPA requires that petitioners submit signed certifications
affirming the truthfulness, accuracy and completeness of the
information in their delisting petitions (See 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12)).
GROWS submitted signed certifications dated June 12, 2000, October 2,
2000, and February 5, 2001, stating that all submitted information is
true, accurate and complete.
B. What Method Did EPA Use To Evaluate Risk?
1. How Did EPA Evaluate Risk When It Reviewed the 1986 GROWS' Petition?
For the current GROWS' delisting determinations, we used the
following fate and transport model to predict the concentration of
hazardous constituents that may be released from the petitioned waste
after disposal so that we could determine the potential impact on human
health and the environment. This transport model was used to estimate
the potential impact of leachable hazardous constituents on an
underlying aquifer.
On February 26, 1985, the Agency first proposed the use of an
analytical approach to evaluate the potential impact of wastes that are
landfilled. The approach proposed at that time involved the use of a
groundwater transport model known as the vertical and horizontal spread
(VHS) model, adapted from Domenico and Palciauskas.\1\ Under a landfill
or surface impoundment scenario, the plausible route of exposure that
was of most concern to the Agency was the ingestion of contaminated
groundwater. The VHS model approximated the transport processes likely
to occur in an aquifer below a waste disposal site. The model predicted
the dilution of the contaminants in a drinking water aquifer as a
result of dispersion in the vertical and horizontal directions. (See 50
FR 7896-7900 for a complete description of the model, and 50 FR 48886-
48910 for a description of changes that were made to the model in
response to public comment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Domenico, P.A. and Palciauskas, V.V, Ground Water, v.20,
no.3, pp. 303-311 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In applying the VHS model, the Agency made a variety of assumptions
to account for a reasonable worst-case disposal scenario. The VHS model
was based on the premise that a waste being evaluated was placed in a
40 foot wide, 8 foot deep trench at a disposal site (i.e., a landfill).
The length of the trench is a function of the volume of the petitioned
waste. The model assumed an infinite source of waste and no aquifer
recharge. The model mathematically simulates the migration of toxicant-
bearing leachate from the waste into the uppermost underlying aquifer,
and the subsequent dilution of the toxicants due to dispersion within
the aquifer. The Agency used this model to predict the maximum
concentration of the diluted toxicant at a compliance point located 500
feet from the disposal site. The model did not consider biodegradation,
[[Page 38973]]
sorption, hydrolysis, or unsaturated soil conditions.
The waste-specific parameters used in the VHS model were the
leachate concentrations of constituents of concern and the annual
volume of the petitioned waste.
Because of acknowledged limitations of the VHS such as concerns
with its ability to consider large waste volumes, wastes stored in
surface impoundments, unsaturated soil conditions, groundwater
recharge, and longitudinal contaminant dispersion in the aquifer, the
Agency worked to develop a more sophisticated model that would account
for these waste disposal assumptions and transport processes.
EPA stated in the final rule promulgating the Toxicity
Characteristic that it would begin using a more sophisticated model for
the delisting program (See 55 FR 11833; March 29, 1990). Starting with
a proposed rule on July 18, 1991, (56 FR 32993) the fate and transport
of constituents in leachate from the bottom of the waste unit through
the unsaturated zone and to a drinking water well in the saturated zone
was estimated using the EPA Composite Model for Landfill (EPACML). The
EPACML accounts for:
One-dimensional steady and uniform advective flow;
Contaminant dispersion in the longitudinal, lateral, and
vertical directions;
Sorption.
However, continued advances in groundwater fate and transport
modeling have been made in recent years and we now propose the use of a
more advanced groundwater fate and transport model for delisting
evaluations.
2. How Did EPA Evaluate Risk for This Proposed Amendment?
a. Introduction. For this delisting determination, we used
information gathered to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e.,
ground water, surface water, air) for hazardous constituents present in
the petitioned waste. We used a fate and transport model to predict the
release of hazardous constituents from the petitioned waste once it is
disposed of to evaluate the potential impact on human health and the
environment. To accomplish this, we used a Windows-based software tool,
the Delisting Risk Assessment Software Program (DRAS), to estimate the
potential releases of waste constituents and to predict the risk
associated with those releases. DRAS accomplishes this using several
EPA models including the EPA Composite Model for Leachate Migration
with Transformation Products (EPACMTP) fate and transport model for
estimating groundwater releases. Additional information about the
EPACMTP model is provided below. For a detailed description of the DRAS
program, See 65 FR 58015, September 27, 2000. The technical support
document for the DRAS program is available in the public docket for
this proposed amendment.
Several revisions have been made to the DRAS program in order to
improve the modeling. Specifically, (a) the groundwater inhalation
pathway was revised to reflect recent advances in modeling household
inhalation from home water use (e.g., showering); (b) the equations
used to predict surface volatilization from a landfill have been
modified to more accurately reflect true waste concentration releases;
(c) the method used to estimate the amount of a constituent that is
released to surface water and which eventually becomes freely dissolved
in the water column has been improved; and (d) the DRAS was modified to
account for bioaccumulation of methyl mercury as a result of the
release of mercury into the surface water column.
For a more detailed description of the revisions to the DRAS
program listed above, See 65 FR 75637, December 4, 2000.
b. What fate and transport model does the Agency use in the DRAS
for evaluating the risks to groundwater from the proposed exempted
waste? We have used the EPACMTP in this tentative delisting
determination. The EPACMTP considers the subsurface fate and transport
of chemical constituents. The EPACMTP is capable of simulating the fate
and transport of dissolved contaminants from a point of release at the
base of a waste management unit through the unsaturated zone and
underlying groundwater to a receptor well at an arbitrary downstream
location in the aquifer. The model accounts for the following
mechanisms affecting contaminant migration: Transport by advection and
dispersion, retardation resulting from reversible linear or nonlinear
equilibrium adsorption onto the soil and aquifer solid phase, and
biochemical degradation processes.
c. Why is the EPACMTP fate and transport model an improvement over
the EPACML? The modeling approach used for this proposed rulemaking
includes three major enhancements over the EPACML. The enhancements
include:
1--Incorporation of additional fate and transport processes (e.g.,
degradation of chemical constituents);
2--Use of enhanced flow and transport solution algorithms and
techniques (e.g., three-dimensional transport) and;
3--Revision of the Monte Carlo methodology (e.g., site-based
implementation of available input data).
A discussion of the key enhancements which have been implemented in
the EPACMTP is presented in the Agency's Proposed Rule found at 65 FR
58015, September 27, 2000, and the details are provided in the proposed
1995 Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) background documents
(60 FR 66344, December 21,1995).
C. What Conclusion Did EPA Reach?
EPA believes that the information provided by GROWS provides a
reasonable basis to grant GROWS' petition for an amendment to its
current delisting. We, therefore, propose to grant GROWS an amendment
for an increase in waste volume. The data submitted to support the
petition and the Agency's evaluation show that the constituents in the
GROWS' wastewater treatment sludge filter cake are below health-based
levels used by the Agency for delisting decision-making even at the
increased maximum annual waste volume of 2000 cubic years.
For this delisting determination, we used information gathered to
identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., groundwater, surface water,
air) for hazardous constituents present in the petitioned waste. We
determined that disposal in a Subtitle D landfill is the most
reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for GROWS' petitioned waste.
We applied the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) described
above to predict the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous
constituents that may be released from the petitioned waste after
disposal, and we determined the potential impact of the disposal of
GROWS' petitioned waste on human health and the environment. In
assessing potential risks to groundwater, we used the increased maximum
waste volume and the maximum measured or calculated leachate
concentrations as inputs to the DRAS program to estimate the
constituent concentrations in the groundwater at a hypothetical
receptor well downgradient from the disposal site. Using an established
risk level, the DRAS program can back-calculate receptor well
concentrations (referred to as a compliance-point concentration) using
standard risk assessment algorithms and Agency health-based numbers.
EPA Region III generally defines acceptable risk levels for the
delisting program as wastes with an excess cancer risk of no more than
1 x 10-6 and a
[[Page 38974]]
hazard quotient of no more than 0.1 for individual constituents. These
are the criteria that we applied to this petition with one exception. A
detectable concentration for arsenic of 0.017 mg/l was found in one out
of thirty-one samples analyzed. The calculated chemical cumulative risk
for ingestion of carcinogenic arsenic at this level is 5.67 x
10-6. However, we believe that this risk is acceptable
because arsenic was detected in only one sample and because the risk is
within a generally acceptable range of 1 x 10-64 and 1 x
10-66. This is the type of evaluation that the Region III
delisting program makes on a case-specific basis.
Furthermore, EPA recently lowered the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for arsenic from 50 g/l
to 10 g/l (See 66 FR 6976, January 22, 2001). Although this
recently promulgated level is being reexamined, if the maximum
allowable leachate concentration was calculated using the new MCL, the
maximum allowable leachate concentration for this waste would be 0.616
mg/l, over 30 times higher than the one detected arsenic leachate
concentration. EPA's July 1996 Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide,
EPA/540/R-96/018, states that acceptable levels of contaminants in
soils for the groundwater pathway could be derived from SWDA Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) or MCLs. Because the maximum allowable
leachate concentration calculated using the new MCL is significantly
higher than the concentration calculated using the health-based limit,
and because EPA's May 2000 Technical Fact Sheet: Proposed Rule for
Arsenic in Drinking Water and Clarifications to Compliance and New
Source Contaminants Monitoring, EPA 815-F-00-011, states that naturally
occurring levels of arsenic are often higher than these levels, we
believe that there can be some flexibility used in setting the
allowable concentration of arsenic in leachate.
Therefore, for this amendment, we propose to set the maximum
allowable leachate concentration for arsenic at 0.3 mg/l which is the
concentration that corresponds to the 1 x 10-4 risk level.
This concentration is lower than the 0.79 mg/l level, which is the
maximum allowable leachate concentration for arsenic in the current
GROWS' delisting. Delisting levels for carcinogenic constituents other
than arsenic will still be set at concentrations which correspond to
the target risk level of 1 x 10-6.
Using the maximum compliance-point concentrations and the EPACMTP
fate and transport modeling factors, the DRAS further back-calculates
the maximum waste constituent concentrations which would not exceed the
compliance-point concentrations in groundwater.
The Agency believes that the EPACMTP fate and transport model
represents a reasonable worst-case scenario for possible groundwater
contamination resulting from 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 the RCRA Subtitle C program. 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 significant
threat to human health or the environment.
Similarly, the DRAS used the increased waste volume requested in
the petition and the maximum reported total concentrations to predict
possible risks associated with releases of waste constituents through
surface pathways (e.g., volatilization or wind-blown particulate from
the landfill). As in the groundwater analyses, the DRAS uses the
established acceptable risk level, the health-based data, and standard
risk assessment and exposure algorithms to predict maximum compliance-
point concentrations of waste constituents at a hypothetical point of
exposure. Using fate and transport equations, the DRAS uses the maximum
compliance-point concentrations and back-calculates the maximum
allowable waste constituent concentrations. In most cases, because a
delisted waste is no longer subject to hazardous waste control, the
Agency is generally unable to predict, and does not presently control,
how a petitioner will manage a waste after it is excluded. Therefore,
we believe that it is inappropriate to consider extensive site-specific
factors when applying the fate and transport model.
As a condition of GROWS' current delisting, GROWS must continue to
test for a list of constituents. Based on the increased waste volume
requested in the petition and the improved risk assessment methodology,
new proposed maximum allowable leachate concentrations and maximum
allowable total constituent concentrations (as explained below) for
these constituents were derived by back-calculating from the delisting
health-based levels through the proposed fate and transport model for a
landfill management scenario. The maximum allowable concentration of
constituents in leachate for all inorganic constituents and the maximum
allowable concentration of constituents in leachate or waste for all
organic constituents in GROWS' waste samples are presented in Table 3
below. These concentrations (i.e., delisting levels) are part of the
proposed verification testing conditions of this amendment.
III. Conditions for Exclusion
A. What Are the Maximum Allowable Concentrations of Hazardous
Constituents?
The following table summarizes the maximum allowable constituent
concentrations (delisting levels) for GROWS'' waste. We recalculated
these delisting levels for each constituent that is part of GROWS''
current delisting using the DRAS and the increased maximum annual waste
volume of 2000 cubic yards. These proposed delisting levels were
derived from the health-based calculations performed by the DRAS
program using either strict health-based levels or MCLs, or from
Toxicity Characteristic regulatory levels, whichever resulted in a
lower (i.e., more conservative) concentration.
The current maximum allowable constituent concentrations (delisting
levels) for GROWS as found in 40 CFR 261 Appendix IX, Table 1, are
specified as leachate concentrations for inorganic constituents and as
total constituent concentrations for organic constituents for reasons
set forth in Section II.B. of this preamble.
Based on the type of waste being evaluated and using the current
evaluation techniques developed by the Agency, we believe that
groundwater contamination would continue to be the most critical
exposure pathway from mismanagement of the waste. Therefore, for this
type of evaluation, delisting levels are now typically expressed as
TCLP leachate concentrations for both inorganic and organic
constituents.
However, because we are proposing to amend the current GROWS'
delisting, we have tentatively decided to give GROWS the option of
using either: (a) Delisting levels calculated as TCLP leachate
concentrations for both inorganic and organic constituents; or (b)
delisting levels calculated as TCLP leachate concentrations for the
inorganic constituents and delisting levels for the organic
constituents which are derived from the TCLP leachate concentrations
and recalculated as total constituent concentrations as described
below. This option is similar to the current GROWS' verification
testing program. The recalculated total constituent concentrations are
equally or even more protective than the actual TCLP concentration. In
section II.A. of this preamble, we explained that the
[[Page 38975]]
TCLP uses a liquid to solid ratio of twenty to one. For a waste such as
the wastewater treatment sludge filter cake generated by GROWS that is
a physical solid (i.e., a waste that does not contain a liquid phase),
the smallest (or lowest) theoretical concentration of a constituent in
a waste that can result in a particular TCLP concentration would be the
TCLP concentration multiplied by a factor of twenty. Again, because
this calculation assumes that all of the constituent present in the
waste will leach from the waste, it is the most conservative
assumption. The actual total constituent concentration that would
result in a particular TCLP concentration would likely be much higher.
Both maximum allowable leachate concentrations and maximum
allowable total concentrations for the organic constituents that are
part of the GROWS' verification testing program are presented in Table
3.
Table 3.--Maximum Allowable Concentration of Constituents in Leachate or
in Waste \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum allowable
leachate Maximum allowable
Constituent concentration (mg/ total concentration
l) (mg/kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic....................... 3.00e-01 ...................
Barium........................ 2.34e+01 ...................
Cadmium....................... 1.80e-01 ...................
Chromium...................... 5.00e+00 ...................
Lead.......................... 5.00e+00 ...................
Mercury....................... 7.70e-02 ...................
Nickel........................ 9.05e+00 ...................
Selenium...................... 6.97e-01 ...................
Silver........................ 1.23e+00 ...................
Cyanide....................... 4.33e+00 ...................
Acetone....................... 2.28e+01 4.56e+02
Acetonitrile.................. 3.92e+00 7.84e+01
Acetophenone.................. 2.28e+01 4.56e+02
Acrolein...................... 1.53e+03 3.06e+04
Acrylonitrile................. 7.80e-03 1.56e-01
Aldrin........................ 5.81e-06 1.16e-04
Aniline....................... 7.39e-01 1.48e+01
Anthracene.................... 8.00e+00 1.60e+02
Benz(a)anthracene............. 1.93e-04 3.86e-03
Benzene....................... 1.45e-01 2.90e+00
Benzo(a)pyrene................ 1.18e-05 2.36e-04
Benzo(b)fluoranthene.......... 1.07e-04 2.14e-03
Benzo(k)fluoranthene.......... 1.49e-03 2.98e-02
Bis(2-chlorethyl)ether........ 3.19e-02 6.38e-01
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.... 8.96e-02 1.79e+00
Bromodichloromethane.......... 6.80e-02 1.36e+00
Bromoform(Tribromomethane).... 5.33e-01 1.07e+01
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol, 2-sec- 2.28e-01 4.56e+00
(Dinoseb).
Butylbenzylphthalate.......... 9.29e+00 1.86e+02
Carbon disulfide.............. 2.28e+01 4.56e+02
Carbon tetrachloride.......... 4.50e-02 9.00e-01
Chlordane..................... 5.11e-04 1.02e-02
Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-...... 2.97e+02 5.94e+03
Chloroaniline, p-............. 9.14e-01 1.83e+01
Chlorobenzene................. 6.08e+00 1.22e+02
Chlorobenzilate............... 4.85e-02 9.70e-01
Chlorodibromomethane.......... 5.02e-02 1.00e+00
Chloroform.................... 7.79e-02 1.56e+00
Chlorophenol, 2-.............. 1.14e+00 2.28e+01
Chrysene...................... 2.04e-02 4.08e-01
Cresol........................ 1.14e+00 2.28e+01
DDD........................... 5.83e-04 1.17e-02
DDE........................... 1.37e-04 2.74e-03
DDT........................... 2.57e-04 5.14e-03
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene......... 5.59e-06 1.12e-04
Dibromo-3-chloropropane, 1, 2- 3.51e-03 7.02e-02
Dichlorobenzene, 1,3-......... 9.35e+00 1.87e+02
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-......... 1.25e+01 2.50e+02
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-......... 1.39e-01 2.78e+00
Dichlorobenzidine, 3,3'-...... 9.36e-03 1.87e-01
Dichlorodifluoromethane....... 4.57e+01 9.14e+02
Dichloroethane, 1,1-.......... 1.20e+00 2.40e+01
Dichloroethane, 1,2-.......... 2.57e-03 5.14e-02
Dichloroethylene, 1,1-........ 7.02e-03 1.40e-01
Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2-.. 4.57e+00 9.14e+01
Dichlorophenol, 2,4-.......... 6.85e-01 1.37e+01
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2.28e+00 4.56e+01
2,4-(2, 4-D).
[[Page 38976]]
Dichloropropane, 1,2-......... 1.14e-01 2.28e+00
Dichloropropene, 1,3-......... 2.34e-02 4.68e-01
Dieldrin...................... 6.23e+01 1.25e+03
Diethyl phthalate............. 2.21e+02 4.42e+03
Dimethoate.................... 6.01e+01 1.20e+03
Dimethyl phthalate............ 1.20e+02 2.40e+03
Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, 1.55e-06 3.10e-05
7,12-.
Dimethylphenol, 2,4-.......... 4.57e+00 9.14e+01
Di-n-butyl phthalate.......... 5.29e+00 1.06e+02
Dinitrobenzene, 1,3-.......... 2.28e-02 4.56e-01
Dinitromethylphenol, 4,6-, 2-. 2.16e-02 4.32e-01
Dinitrophenol, 2,4-........... 4.57e-01 9.14e+00
Dinitrotoluene, 2,6-.......... 6.54e-03 1.31e-01
Di-n-octyl phthalate.......... 1.12e-02 2.24e-01
Dioxane, 1,4-................. 3.83e-01 7.66e+00
Diphenylamine................. 3.76e+00 7.52e+01
Disulfoton.................... 3.80e+02 7.60e+03
Endosulfan.................... 1.37e+00 2.74e+01
Endrin........................ 2.00e-02 4.00e-01
Ethylbenzene.................. 1.66e+01 3.32e+02
Ethylene Dibromide............ 4.13e-03 8.26e-02
Fluoranthene.................. 5.16e-01 1.03e+01
Fluorene...................... 1.78e+00 3.56e+01
Heptachlor.................... 8.00e-03 1.60e-01
Heptachlor epoxide............ 8.00e-03 1.60e-01
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene...... 9.61e-03 1.92e-01
Hexachlorobenzene............. 9.67e-05 1.93e-03
Hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma- 4.00e-01 8.00e+00
(Lindane).
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene..... 1.66e+04 3.32e+05
Hexachloroethane.............. 1.76e-01 3.52e+00
Hexachlorophene............... 3.13e-04 6.26e-03
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene...... 6.04e-05 1.21e-03
Isobutyl alcohol.............. 6.85e+01 1.37e+03
Isophorone.................... 4.44e+00 8.88e+01
Methacrylonitrile............. 2.28e-02 4.56e-01
Methoxychlor.................. 1.00e+01 2.00e+02
Methyl bromide (Bromomethane). 1.28e+02 2.56e+03
Methyl chloride 1.80e-01 3.60e+00
(Chloromethane).
Methyl ethylketone............ 1.37e+02 2.74e+03
Methyl isobutylketone......... 1.83e+01 3.66e+02
Methyl methacrylate........... 1.03e+03 2.06e+04
Methyl parathion.............. 1.27e+02 2.54e+03
Methylene chloride............ 2.88e-01 5.76e+00
Naphthalene................... 1.50e+00 3.00e+01
Nitrobenzene.................. 1.14e-01 2.28e+00
Nitrosodiethylamine........... 2.81e-05 5.62e-04
Nitrosodimethylamine.......... 8.26e-05 1.65e-03
Nitrosodi-n-butylamine........ 7.80e-04 1.56e-02
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine..... 6.02e-04 1.20e-02
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine........ 8.60e-01 1.72e+01
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine.......... 2.01e-03 4.02e-02
Pentachlorobenzene............ 1.15e-02 2.30e-01
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB) 5.00e-03 1.00e-01
Pentachlorophenol............. 4.10e-03 8.20e-02
Phenanthrene.................. 2.09e-01 4.18e+00
Phenol........................ 1.37e+02 2.74e+03
Polychlorinated biphenyls..... 3.00e-05 6.00e-04
Pronamide..................... 1.71e+01 3.42e+02
Pyrene........................ 3.96e-01 7.92e+00
Pyridine...................... 2.28e-01 4.56e+00
Styrene....................... 6.08e+00 1.22e+02
Tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,4,5-.. 9.43e-03 1.89e-01
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-... 4.39e-01 8.78e+00
Tetrachloroethylene........... 8.55e-02 1.71e+00
Tetrachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6-... 1.81e+00 3.62e+01
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate 3.01e+05 6.02e+06
(Sulfotep).
Toluene....................... 4.57e+01 9.14e+02
Toxaphene..................... 5.00e-01 1.00e+01
[[Page 38977]]
Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-...... 7.24e-01 1.45e+01
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-....... 7.60e+00 1.52e+02
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-....... 7.80e-02 1.56e+00
Trichloroethylene............. 3.04e-01 6.08e+00
Trichlorofluoromethane........ 6.85e+01 1.37e+03
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5-....... 9.16e+00 1.83e+02
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-....... 2.76e-01 5.52e+00
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2.28e+00 4.56e+01
2,4,5- (245-T).
Trichlorophenoxypropionic 1.00e+00 2.00e+01
acid, 2,4,5- (Silvex).
Trichloropropane, 1,2,3-...... 7.69e-04 1.54e-02
Trinitrobenzene, sym-......... 6.49e+00 1.30e+02
Vinyl chloride................ 2.34e-03 4.68e-02
Xylenes (total)............... 3.20e+02 6.40e+03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term ``e'' in the table is a variation of ``scientific
notation'' in base 10 exponential form and is used in this table
because it is a convenient way to represent very large or small
numbers. For example, 3.00e-03 is equivalent to 3.00 x 10-\3\ and
represents the number 0.003.
B. How Frequently Must GROWS Test the Waste and How Must It Be Managed
Until It Is Disposed?
GROWS must continue to test and manage its waste according to the
conditions set forth in their current delisting. We are not proposing
in this amendment to change the method of sample collection, the
frequency of sample analysis or the waste holding procedures currently
specified.
C. What Must GROWS Do if the Process Changes?
We are proposing to add this condition as part of the amendment. If
GROWS significantly changes the treatment process or the chemicals used
in the treatment process, GROWS may not manage the wastewater treatment
sludge filter cake generated from the new process under this exclusion
until it has met the following conditions: (a) GROWS must demonstrate
that the waste meets the delisting levels set forth in Section III. A.
of this preamble; (b) it must demonstrate that no new hazardous
constituents listed in Appendix VIII of Part 261 have been introduced
into the manufacturing or treatment process; and (c) it must obtain
prior written approval from EPA and the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection to manage the waste under this exclusion. This
condition allows GROWS the flexibility to modify its process (e.g.,
changes in equipment or operating conditions). However, if any
significant change is made which may affect the composition of the
waste, GROWS must demonstrate that the waste continues to meet the
delisting criteria and must obtain prior written approval from EPA and
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
D. What Data Must GROWS Submit?
We are proposing to add this condition as part of the amendment.
The data obtained under Paragraphs B and C of this Section must be
submitted to The Waste and Chemicals Management Division, U.S. EPA
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, and The
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Land
Recycling and Waste Management, Rachel Carson State Office Building,
400 Market Street, 14th Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17105. Data from the
annual verification testing must be compiled and submitted to EPA and
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection within sixty
(60) days from the end of the calendar year. Records of operating
conditions and analytical data must be compiled, summarized, and
maintained onsite for a minimum of three years commencing with the
effective date of the finalization of this amendment and must be
furnished upon request by EPA or the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, and made available for inspection. Failure to
submit the required data within the specified time period or to
maintain the required records onsite for the specified time period will
be considered by EPA, at its discretion, sufficient basis to revoke the
exclusion to the extent determined necessary by EPA. All data must be
accompanied by a signed copy of the certification statement set forth
in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12) to attest to the truth and accuracy of the data
submitted. Although management of the wastes covered by this petition
would not be subject to Subtitle C jurisdiction upon final promulgation
of an exclusion, the generator of a delisted waste must treat, store,
or dispose of the waste in a facility that is permitted, licensed, or
registered by a State to manage municipal or industrial solid waste.
E. What Happens if GROWS Fails To Meet the Conditions of the Exclusion?
We are proposing to add this condition as part of the amendment. If
GROWS violates the terms and conditions established in this exclusion,
the Agency may start procedures to withdraw the exclusion.
If GROWS discovers that a condition at the facility or an
assumption related to the treatment or disposal of the excluded waste
that was modeled or predicted in the petition does not occur as modeled
or predicted, then GROWS must report any information relevant to that
condition in writing to the Regional Administrator or his/her delegatee
and The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection within 10
days of discovering that condition.
Upon receiving such information, regardless of its source, the
Regional Administrator or his/her delegatee and the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection will determine whether the
reported condition requires further action. Further action may include
repealing the exclusion, modifying the exclusion, or other appropriate
action deemed necessary to protect human health or the environment.
The purpose of this condition is to require GROWS to disclose new
or different information related to a condition at the facility or
disposal of the waste if it had or has bearing on the delisting. This
will allow EPA to
[[Page 38978]]
reevaluate the exclusion if new or additional information is provided
to the Agency by GROWS which indicates that information on which EPA's
decision was based was incorrect or that circumstances have changed
such that the information evaluated for the delisting is no longer
correct or would cause EPA to deny the petition if then presented.
Further, although this provision expressly requires GROWS to report
differing site conditions or assumptions used in the petition within 10
days of discovery, if EPA discovers such information itself or from a
third party, EPA will act upon such information as appropriate.
EPA has the authority under RCRA and the Administrative Procedures
Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. (1978), (APA), to reopen the delisting under
the conditions described above.
III. Effect on State Authorizations
This proposed amendment, 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 (RCRA) or State (non-RCRA)
programs), petitioners are urged to contact State regulatory
authorities to determine the current status of their wastes under the
State laws.
Furthermore, some States are authorized to administer a delisting
program in lieu of the Federal program (i.e., to make their own
delisting decisions). Therefore, this proposed amendment, if
promulgated, may not apply in those authorized States, unless it is
adopted by the State. If the petitioned waste is managed in any State
with delisting authorization, GROWS must obtain delisting authorization
from that State before the waste may be managed as nonhazardous in that
State.
IV. Effective Date
EPA is today making a tentative decision to grant GROWS' petition
for amendment. This proposed rule, if made final, will become effective
immediately upon such final publication. The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 amended Section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the
case here, because this rule, if finalized, would reduce the existing
requirements for a facility 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 Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
V. Administrative Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a rule of general applicability and therefore is not a
``regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. Because this action is a rule of particular applicability
relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), or to sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because the rule will affect
only one facility, it will not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as specified in section 203 of UMRA, or communities of
Indian tribal governments, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000). For the same reason, this rule will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
This rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in
issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: June 14, 2001.
Thomas C. Voltaggio,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
For the reasons set forth 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.
Appendix IX of Part 261--[Amended]
2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of Part 261, the entry for
``Geological Reclamation Operations and Waste Systems, Inc.,
Morrisville, PA'' is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 38979]]
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Geological Reclamation Operations Morrisville, Pennsylvania..... Wastewater treatment sludge filter cake
Waste Systems, Inc. from the treatment of EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F039, generated at a maximum
annual rate of 2000 cubic yards, after
July 26, 2001; and disposed of in a
Subtitle D landfill. The exclusion
covers the filter cake resulting from
the treatment of hazardous waste
leachate derived from only ``old''
GROWS and non-hazardous leachate
derived from only non-hazardous waste
sources. The exclusion does not address
the waste disposed of in the ``old''
GROWS'' Landfill or the grit generated
during the removal of heavy solids from
the landfill leachate. To ensure that
hazardous constituents are not present
in the filter cake at levels of
regulatory concern, GROWS must
implement a testing program for the
petitioned waste. This testing program
must meet the conditions listed below
in order for the exclusion to be valid:
(1) Testing: Sample collection and
analyses, including quality control
(QC) procedures, must be performed
according to SW-846 methodologies.
(A) Sample Collection: Each batch of
waste generated over a four-week period
must be collected in containers with a
maximum capacity of 20-cubic yards. At
the end of the four-week period, each
container must be divided into four
quadrants and a single, full-depth core
sample shall be collected from each
quadrant. All of the full-depth core
samples then must be composited under
laboratory conditions to produce one
representative composite sample for the
four-week period.
(B) Sample Analysis: Each four-week
composite sample must be analyzed for
all of the constituents listed in
Condition (3). The analytical data,
including quality control information,
must be submitted to The Waste and
Chemicals Management Division, U.S. EPA
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, and the
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of
Land Recycling and Waste Management,
Rachel Carson State Office Building,
400 Market Street, 14th Floor,
Harrisburg, PA 17105. Data from the
annual verification testing must be
compiled and submitted to EPA and the
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection within sixty
(60) days from the end of the calendar
year. All data must be accompanied by a
signed copy of the statement set forth
in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12) to certify to
the truth and accuracy of the data
submitted. Records of operating
conditions and analytical data must be
compiled, summarized, and maintained on-
site for a minimum of three years and
must be furnished upon request by any
employee or representative of EPA or
the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, and made
available for inspection.
(2) Waste Holding: The dewatered filter
cake must be stored as hazardous until
the verification analyses are
completed. If the four-week composite
sample does not exceed any of the
delisting levels set forth in Condition
(3), the filter cake waste
corresponding to this sample may be
managed and disposed of in accordance
with all applicable solid waste
regulations. If the four-week composite
sample exceeds any of the delisting
levels set forth in Condition (3), the
filter cake waste generated during the
time period corresponding to the four-
week composite sample must be retreated
until it meets these levels (analyses
must be repeated) or managed and
disposed of in accordance with Subtitle
C of RCRA. Filter cake which is
generated but for which analyses are
not complete or valid must be managed
and disposed of in accordance with
Subtitle C of RCRA, until valid
analyses demonstrate that the waste
meets the delisting levels.
(3) Delisting Levels: If the
concentrations in the four-week
composite sample of the filter cake
waste for any of the hazardous
constituents listed below exceed their
respective maximum allowable
concentrations (mg/l or mg/kg) also
listed below, the four-week batch of
failing filter cake waste must either
be retreated until it meets these
levels or managed and disposed of in
accordance with Subtitle C of RCRA.
GROWS has the option of determining
whether the filter cake waste exceeds
the maximum allowable concentrations
for the organic constituents by either
performing the analysis on a TCLP
leachate of the waste or performing
total constituent analysis on the
waste, and then comparing the results
to the corresponding maximum allowable
concentration level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum allowable leachate
Constituent conc. (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Inorganics:
Arsenic.............................. 3.00e-01
Barium............................... 2.34e+01
Cadmium.............................. 1.80e-01
Chromium............................. 5.00e+00
Lead................................. 5.00e+00
Mercury.............................. 7.70e-02
Nickel............................... 9.05e+00
Selenium............................. 6.97e-01
Silver............................... 1.23e+00
[[Page 38980]]
Cyanide.............................. 4.33e+00
Cyanide extractions must be conducted using distilled water in place of
the leaching media specified in the TCLP procedure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum allowable Maximum allowable
Constituent leachate conc. (mg/ total conc. (mg/
l) kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Organics:
Acetone.................... 2.28e+01 4.56e+02
Acetonitrile............... 3.92e+00 7.84e+01
Acetophenone............... 2.28e+01 4.56e+02
Acrolein................... 1.53e+03 3.06e+04
Acrylonitrile.............. 7.80e-03 1.56e-01
Aldrin..................... 5.81e-06 1.16e-04
Aniline.................... 7.39e-01 1.48e+01
Anthracene................. 8.00e+00 1.60e+02
Benz(a)anthracene.......... 1.93e-04 3.86e-03
Benzene.................... 1.45e-01 2.90e+00
Benzo(a)pyrene............. 1.18e-05 2.36e-04
Benzo(b)fluoranthene....... 1.07e-04 2.14e-03
Benzo(k)fluoranthene....... 1.49e-03 2.98e-02
Bis(2-chlorethyl)ether..... 3.19e-02 6.38e-01
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. 8.96e-02 1.79e+00
Bromodichloromethane....... 6.80e-02 1.36e+00
Bromoform (Tribromomethane) 5.33e-01 1.07e+01
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol, 2- 2.28e-01 4.56e+00
sec-(Dinoseb).
Butylbenzylphthalate....... 9.29e+00 1.86e+02
Carbon disulfide........... 2.28e+01 4.56e+02
Carbon tetrachloride....... 4.50e-02 9.00e-01
Chlordane.................. 5.11e-04 1.02e-02
Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-... 2.97e+02 5.94e+03
Chloroaniline, p-.......... 9.14e-01 1.83e+01
Chlorobenzene.............. 6.08e+00 1.22e+02
Chlorobenzilate............ 4.85e-02 9.70e-01
Chlorodibromomethane....... 5.02e-02 1.00e+00
Chloroform................. 7.79e-02 1.56e+00
Chlorophenol, 2-........... 1.14e+00 2.28e+01
Chrysene................... 2.04e-02 4.08e-01
Cresol..................... 1.14e+00 2.28e+01
DDD........................ 5.83e-04 1.17e-02
DDE........................ 1.37e-04 2.74e-03
DDT........................ 2.57e-04 5.14e-03
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene...... 5.59e-06 1.12e-04
Dibromo-3-chloropropane, 3.51e-03 7.02e-02
1,2-.
Dichlorobenzene 1,3-....... 9.35e+00 1.87e+02
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-...... 1.25e+01 2.50e+02
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-...... 1.39e-01 2.78e+00
Dichlorobenzidine, 3,3'-... 9.36e-03 1.87e-01
Dichlorodifluoromethane.... 4.57e+01 9.14e+02
Dichloroethane, 1,1-....... 1.20e+00 2.40e+01
Dichloroethane, 1,2-....... 2.57e-03 5.14e-02
Dichloroethylene, 1,1-..... 7.02e-03 1.40e-01
Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2- 4.57e+00 9.14e+01
.
Dichlorophenol, 2,4-....... 6.85e-01 1.37e+01
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2.28e+00 4.56e+01
2,4-(2,4-D).
Dichloropropane, 1,2-...... 1.14e-01 2.28e+00
Dichloropropene, 1,3-...... 2.34e-02 4.68e-01
Dieldrin................... 6.23e+01 1.25e+03
Diethyl phthalate.......... 2.21e+02 4.42e+03
Dimethoate................. 6.01e+01 1.20e+03
Dimethyl phthalate......... 1.20e+02 2.40e+03
Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, 1.55e-06 3.10e-05
7,12-.
Dimethylphenol, 2,4-....... 4.57e+00 9.14e+01
Di-n-butyl phthalate....... 5.29e+00 1.06e+02
Dinitrobenzene, 1,3-....... 2.28e-02 4.56e-01
Dinitromethylphenol, 4,6-,2- 2.16e-02 4.32e-01
.
Dinitrophenol, 2,4-........ 4.57e-01 9.14e+00
Dinitrotoluene, 2,6-....... 6.54e-03 1.31e-01
Di-n-octyl phthalate....... 1.12e-02 2.24e-01
Dioxane, 1,4-.............. 3.83e-01 7.66e+00
Diphenylamine.............. 3.76e+00 7.52e+01
[[Page 38981]]
Disulfoton................. 3.80e+02 7.60e+03
Endosulfan................. 1.37e+00 2.74e+01
Endrin..................... 2.00e-02 4.00e-01
Ethylbenzene............... 1.66e+01 3.32e+02
Ethylene Dibromide......... 4.13e-03 8.26e-02
Fluoranthene............... 5.16e-01 1.03e+01
Fluorene................... 1.78e+00 3.56e+01
Heptachlor................. 8.00e-03 1.60e-01
Heptachlor epoxide......... 8.00e-03 1.60e-01
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene... 9.61e-03 1.92e-01
Hexachlorobenzene.......... 9.67e-05 1.93e-03
Hexachlorocyclohexane, 4.00e-01 8.00e+00
gamma-(Lindane).
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.. 1.66e+04 3.32e+05
Hexachloroethane........... 1.76e-01 3.52e+00
Hexachlorophene............ 3.13e-04 6.26e-03
Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene.... 6.04e-05 1.21e-03
Isobutyl alcohol........... 6.85e+01 1.37e+03
Isophorone................. 4.44e+00 8.88e+01
Methacrylonitrile.......... 2.28e-02 4.56e-01
Methoxychlor............... 1.00e+01 2.00e+02
Methyl bromide 1.28e+02 2.56e+03
(Bromomethane).
Methyl chloride 1.80e-01 3.60e+00
(Chloromethane).
Methyl ethyl ketone........ 1.37e+02 2.74e+03
Methyl isobutyl ketone..... 1.83e+01 3.66e+02
Methyl methacrylate........ 1.03e+03 2.06e+04
Methyl parathion........... 1.27e+02 2.54e+03
Methylene chloride......... 2.88e-01 5.76e+00
Naphthalene................ 1.50e+00 3.00e+01
Nitrobenzene............... 1.14e-01 2.28e+00
Nitrosodiethylamine........ 2.81e-05 5.62e-04
Nitrosodimethylamine....... 8.26e-05 1.65e-03
Nitrosodi-n-butylamine..... 7.80e-04 1.56e-02
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine.. 6.02e-04 1.20e-02
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine..... 8.60e-01 1.72e+01
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine....... 2.01e-03 4.02e-02
Pentachlorobenzene......... 1.15e-02 2.30e-01
Pentachloronitrobenzene 5.00e-03 1.00e-01
(PCNB).
Pentachlorophenol.......... 4.10e-03 8.20e-02
Phenanthrene............... 2.09e-01 4.18e+00
Phenol..................... 1.37e+02 2.74e+03
Polychlorinated biphenyls.. 3.00e-05 6.00e-04
Pronamide.................. 1.71e+01 3.42e+02
Pyrene..................... 3.96e-01 7.92e+00
Pyridine................... 2.28e-01 4.56e+00
Styrene.................... 6.08e+00 1.22e+02
Tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,4,5- 9.43e-03 1.89e-01
.
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 4.39e-01 8.78e+00
Tetrachloroethylene........ 8.55e-02 1.71e+00
Tetrachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6- 1.81e+00 3.62e+01
Tetraethyl 3.01e+05 6.02e+06
dithiopyrophosphate
(Sulfotep).
Toluene.................... 4.57e+01 9.14e+02
Toxaphene.................. 5.00e-01 1.00e+01
Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-... 7.24e-01 1.45e+01
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-.... 7.60e+00 1.52e+02
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-.... 7.80e-02 1.56e+00
Trichloroethylene.......... 3.04e-01 6.08e+00
Trichlorofluoromethane..... 6.85e+01 1.37e+03
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5-.... 9.16e+00 1.83e+02
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-.... 2.76e-01 5.52e+00
Trichlorophenoxyacetic 2.28e+00 4.56e+01
acid, 2,4,5-(245-T).
Trichlorophenoxypropionic 1.00e+00 2.00e+01
acid, 2,4,5-(Silvex).
Trichloropropane, 1,2,3-... 7.69e-04 1.54e-02
Trinitrobenzene, sym-...... 6.49e+00 1.30e+02
Vinyl chloride............. 2.34e-03 4.68e-02
Xylenes (total)............ 3.20e+02 6.40e+03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 38982]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If
GROWS significantly changes the
treatment process or the chemicals used
in the treatment process, GROWS may not
manage the treatment sludge filter cake
generated from the new process under
this exclusion until it has met the
following conditions: (a) GROWS must
demonstrate that the waste meets the
delisting levels set forth in Paragraph
3; (b) it must demonstrate that no new
hazardous constituents listed in
Appendix VIII of Part 261 have been
introduced into the manufacturing or
treatment process: and (c) it must
obtain prior written approval from EPA
and the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection to manage the
waste under this exclusion.
(5) Reopener:
(a) If GROWS discovers that a condition
at the facility or an assumption
related to the disposal of the excluded
waste that was modeled or predicted in
the petition does not occur as modeled
or predicted, then GROWS must report
any information relevant to that
condition, in writing, to the Regional
Administrator or his delegate and to
the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection within 10 days
of discovering that condition.
(b) Upon receiving information described
in paragraph (a) of this section,
regardless of its source, the Regional
Administrator or his delegate and the
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection will determine
whether the reported condition requires
further action. Further action may
include repealing the exclusion,
modifying the exclusion, or other
appropriate response necessary to
protect human health and the
environment.
[FR Doc. 01-18533 Filed 7-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P