[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 45 (Thursday, March 7, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10341-10353]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-5314]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-7153-3]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Proposed Exclusions for
Identifying and Listing Hazardous Waste
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rules and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ``the Agency'' or ``we'' in this preamble) is
proposing to exclude (or ``delist'') wastewater treatment plant sludge
(from conversion coating on aluminum) generated by 11 automobile
assembly facilities in the State of Michigan from the lists of
hazardous wastes. The facilities include three plants owned and
operated by General Motors Corporation (GM)(Pontiac East-Pontiac,
Hamtramck-Detroit, Flint Truck-Flint), one plant owned and operated by
GM with an onsite wastewater treatment plant owned by the City of
Lansing and operated by Trigen/Cinergy-USFOS of Lansing LLC (Lansing
Grand River-Lansing), three plants owned and operated by Ford Motor
Company (Wixom Assembly Plant-Wixom, Michigan Truck/Wayne Integrated
Stamping and Assembly Plant-Wayne, Dearborn Assembly-Dearborn), one
plant owned and operated by Auto Alliance International Inc. (AAI), a
Ford/Mazda joint venture company (Auto Alliance International Inc.-Flat
Rock), and three plants owned and operated by DaimlerChrysler
Corporation (Sterling Heights Assembly Plant-Sterling Heights, Warren
Truck Plant-Warren, Jefferson North Assembly Plant-Jefferson).
The Agency is proposing to use an expedited process to evaluate
these wastes under a pilot project developed with the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). EPA requests comments on
the pilot project. Each of these 11 facilities voluntarily requested to
participate in the pilot project. Based on its evaluation of historical
data, the Agency has
[[Page 10342]]
tentatively decided to grant an exclusion for each of these facilities,
conditioned in part upon the facility's demonstration that the waste is
nonhazardous. These proposed decisions, if finalized, will
conditionally exclude these wastes from the requirements of hazardous
waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).
DATES: We will accept public comments on these proposed decisions until
April 22, 2002. We will stamp comments postmarked after the close of
the comment period as ``late.'' These ``late'' comments may not be
considered in formulating a final decision. Comments which are meant to
relate to a single facility or a subset of the 11 facilities must
identify the facility(s) to which the comment applies.
Any person may request a hearing on any of these proposed decisions
by filing a request with Robert Springer, Director, Waste, Pesticides
and Toxics Division (D-8J), EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,
Illinois 60604. Your request for a hearing must reach EPA by March 22,
2002. The request must contain the information prescribed in 40 CFR
260.20(d).
ADDRESSES: Please send two copies of your comments to Todd Ramaly,
Waste Management Branch (DW-8J), EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd.,
Chicago, IL, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The docket for these proposed rules is
located at 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, and is available for
viewing from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal
holidays. The public may copy material from the docket at $0.15 per
page. For technical information concerning this document or to make
appointment to view the docket, contact Todd Ramaly at the address
above or at 312-353-9317.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is
organized as follows:
I. Overview
A. What action is EPA proposing?
B. Why is EPA proposing to grant, on an expedited basis, these
delistings?
C. What is unique about today's proposals?
II. Background
A. What is the history of the delisting program?
B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a
petitioner?
C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a
delisting petition?
D. How will these actions affect the States?
III. The Expedited Delisting Project
A. What is the Expedited Delisting Project?
B. Does the project amend EPA's delisting petition regulations?
C. Who is eligible to participate in the project?
D. How does the project address wastes not yet generated?
E. What is the standard automotive assembly plant process that
generates F019 waste?
F. What information will each facility submit under the project?
G. What is required by the project's sampling and analysis plan?
H. When would EPA finalize the proposed delistings?
I. What support is MDEQ providing EPA in implementing the
project?
IV. EPA's Evaluation of Waste Information and Data
A. What information and analyses did EPA consider in developing
these proposed delistings?
B. How did EPA establish risk levels for these wastes?
C. What are the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the waste?
D. How will EPA evaluate the exclusion demonstration?
V. Conditions for Exclusion
A. How will the petitioners manage the waste if it is delisted?
B. How frequently must each facility test the waste?
C. What must the facility do if the process changes?
D. What happens if a facility's waste fails to meet the
conditions of the exclusion?
VI. Regulatory Impact
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
X. Executive Order 12875
XI. Executive Order 13045
XII. Executive Order 13084
XIII. National Technology Transfer And Advancement Act
I. Overview
A. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
The EPA is tentatively proposing to grant petitions to exclude, or
delist, from the definition of hazardous waste, wastewater treatment
sludge generated at 11 automotive assembly facilities in Michigan. As a
pilot project, the EPA proposes to exclude these wastes using an
expedited process. Prior to finalizing our decision, we will compare
constituent levels in the waste to maximum allowable concentration
levels established by a fate and transport model.
B. Why Is EPA Proposing To Grant, on an Expedited Basis, These
Delistings?
Automobile manufacturers are adding aluminum to automobiles, which
may result in increased fuel economy. However, when aluminum is
conversion coated in the automobile assembly process, the resulting
wastewater treatment sludge must be managed as hazardous waste (listed
as ``F019''). Previously, EPA granted has petitions to delist F019
waste at automobile assembly plants. Based on available historical data
and other information, EPA believes that a number of automotive
assembly plants use a similar manufacturing process which generates a
similar F019 waste likely to be nonhazardous. This similarity of
manufacturing processes and the resultant wastes provides an
opportunity for the automobile industry to be more efficient in
submitting delisting petitions and EPA in evaluating them. Efficiency
may be gained and time saved by using standardized approaches for
gathering, submitting and evaluating data. Therefore, EPA, in
conjunction with MDEQ, developed a pilot project to expedite the
delisting process. EPA believes that the project will be a more
efficient way of making delisting determinations for this group of
facilities. At the same time, EPA believes that these delisting
determinations will be consistent with current laws and regulations and
will be protective of human health and the environment.
C. What Is Unique About Today's Proposals?
Today's proposals, while consistent with the delisting petition
regulations at 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, are unique in several
important ways. Specifically, we are taking a standardized approach for
the evaluation of petitions from multiple automotive assembly plants.
In addition, EPA is identifying constituents of concern based on
available historical data from waste generated at automotive assembly
plants. Once the petitioner submits the analytical results of
demonstration samples under Sec. 260.22, EPA will determine whether the
waste meets the maximum allowable concentration levels set forth in
this proposal. Generally, EPA identifies constituents of concern for a
particular facility from an analysis of its waste rather than relying
on industry-wide historical data. By participating in the project,
facilities agree that, if their waste is excluded, it must be disposed
in a Subtitle D landfill with a liner and a leachate collection system.
Typically, EPA only requires that excluded waste be disposed in a
Subtitle D landfill, which may include older facilities that are
unlined and without a leachate collection system. Finally, while we
usually propose delistings one at a time, today we are proposing to
simultaneously grant delistings for multiple facilities.
In addition to the proposed delistings, EPA is requesting comment
on the pilot
[[Page 10343]]
project to expedite these delistings, which is described in section
III, below.
II. Background
A. What Is the History of the Delisting Program?
The EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from
nonspecific and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its
final and interim final regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA.
The EPA has amended this list several times and published it in 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 part 261 (that is, ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or (2) they meet the criteria
for listing contained in Sec. 261.11(a)(2) or (3).
Individual waste streams may vary depending on raw materials,
industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste described
in these regulations generally is hazardous, a specific waste from an
individual facility that meets the listing description may not be.
For this reason, Secs. 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion
procedure, called delisting, which allows a person to demonstrate that
EPA should not regulate a specific waste from a particular generating
facility as a hazardous waste.
B. What Is a Delisting Petition, and What Does It Require of a
Petitioner?
A delisting petition is a request from a facility to EPA or an
authorized state to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes.
The petitioner must show that the waste generated at a particular
facility does not meet any of the criteria for listed wastes. The
criteria for which EPA lists a waste are in 40 CFR 261.11 and in the
background documents for the listed wastes.
In addition, a petitioner must demonstrate that the waste does not
exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics and must present
sufficient information for us to decide whether factors other than
those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a
hazardous waste. (40 CFR 260.22, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f) and the background
documents for a listed waste.)
Once a waste has been delisted, a generator remains obligated under
RCRA to confirm that its waste remains nonhazardous.
C. What Factors Must EPA Consider in Deciding Whether To Grant a
Delisting Petition?
Besides considering the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a), 42 U.S.C.
6921(f), and in the background documents for the listed wastes, EPA
must consider any factors (including additional constituents) other
than those for which we listed the waste if these additional factors
could cause the waste to be hazardous. (See The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984.)
EPA must also consider mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes
and wastes derived from treatment of listed hazardous waste as
hazardous wastes. See 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i), called the
``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules, respectively. These wastes are
also eligible for exclusion but remain hazardous wastes until excluded.
D. How Will These Actions Affect States?
Because EPA is proposing today's exclusions under the federal RCRA
delisting program, only states subject to federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. These exclusions may not be effective in
states having a dual system that includes federal RCRA requirements and
their own requirements, or in states which have received our
authorization to make their own delisting decisions.
EPA allows states to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory
requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of
RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that
prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the state.
Because a dual system (that is, both federal (RCRA) and state (non-
RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's waste, we urge the
petitioners to contact the state regulatory authority to establish the
status of its waste under the state law.
EPA has also authorized some states to administer a delisting
program in place of the federal program, that is, to make state
delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those
authorized states. If a facility transports the petitioned waste to or
manages the waste in any state with delisting authorization, it must
obtain a delisting from that state before the facility can manage the
waste as nonhazardous in that state.
III. The Expedited Delisting Project
A. What Is the Expedited Delisting Project?
On December 21, 2001, EPA signed a Memorandum of Understanding with
the MDEQ to implement the pilot project titled: ``Expedited Delisting
of Aluminum Phosphating Sludge for Automobile Assembly Operations''
(hereinafter the ``Expedited Delisting Project'' or ``project''). In
February 2002, the Agencies amended the Memorandum of Understanding to
modify the eligibility requirements. A copy of the Amended Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) is available in the docket for these proposed
rules. The Agencies agreed to implement the terms of the MOU as a five-
year project. The purpose of the project is to more efficiently process
delisting petitions from automobile assembly plants that generate F109
waste without using the hazardous constituents for which F019 was
originally listed. The similarity of waste at these automotive assembly
plants gives EPA and industry an opportunity to be more efficient.
EPA and MDEQ developed the project under the ``Joint EPA/State
Agreement to Pursue Regulatory Innovation'' which encourages states to
propose innovative approaches to environmental regulation to ``find
new, better, and more efficient and effective ways to improve
environmental protection.'' See, 63 FR 24785, May 5, 1998. Consistent
with the joint agreement, the project was developed with the input of
``stakeholders,'' i.e., representatives of the automobile industry
(Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corporation) and an
environmental organization (The Ecology Center). In December 2001, MDEQ
notified the stakeholders that the agencies had signed the MOU.
As described in section I.C, above, the Expedited Delisting Project
takes a new approach in the way EPA implements its delisting
regulations for a group of similar facilities. Because of the
availability of historical data and the similarities among these
facilities, EPA and MDEQ developed, under the Expedited Delisting
Project, a uniform approach for the submission and evaluation of
petitions made by automotive assembly plants to delist F019 waste.
First, EPA usually requires the petitioner to submit a manufacturing
process description specific to its facility. However, under the
Expedited Delisting Project, each facility must certify that it uses
the standard automotive assembly manufacturing process that generates
F019 waste. Second, EPA requires a petitioner to
[[Page 10344]]
submit analytical results of demonstration samples. Generally,
petitioners work separately with EPA to develop a sampling and analysis
plan to comply with this section. Under the project, each petitioner
will use the same pre-approved sampling and analysis plan. Third, EPA
identifies constituents of concern and sets maximum allowable
concentrations for those constituents in the waste separately for each
facility. Under the project, EPA is establishing a set constituents of
concern and corresponding maximum allowable concentrations that are the
same for a group of automotive assembly facilities.
Another significant innovation is that the facilities participating
in the project will dispose of excluded waste in a lined landfill with
a leachate collection system. Generally, under previous exclusions,
wastes may be sent to any Subtitle D landfill, including older
facilities that may not be lined or have a leachate collection system.
Finally, today EPA is simultaneously proposing multiple delistings.
Typically, EPA proposes delistings one at a time.
EPA requests comments on the Expedited Delisting Project described
in this section.
B. Does the Project Amend EPA's Delisting Petition Regulations?
The Expedited Delisting Project is not an amendment to the
delisting petition regulations at 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. Rather, the
project represents a new approach in EPA's implementation of these
delisting petition regulations. Participation in the project is
voluntary. Automobile assembly plants not participating may follow the
usual process for delisting.
Today's description of the Expedited Delisting Project (apart from
the proposed delistings themselves) provides guidance to EPA,
facilities participating in the project, and the general public on how
EPA intends to exercise its discretion in implementing the statutory
and regulatory provisions that concern the delisting of F019 waste
generated by automotive assembly plants in Michigan. The statutory
provisions and EPA regulations described in this project contain
legally binding requirements. This project does not substitute for
those provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself.
However, the proposed delistings, if finalized, will be rules imposing
legally binding requirements. EPA retains the discretion to adopt
approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from the project where
appropriate. Any decisions regarding a particular facility's waste will
be made based on the statute and regulations. EPA will consider whether
or not the project is appropriate in a particular situation. The
project will be subject to periodic evaluation and may be revised
without public notice.
C. Who Is Eligible To Participate in the Project?
The MOU states the eligibility requirements for the project, which
are summarized in this section. Subject to approval, Michigan
automobile or light duty truck assembly facilities, which use, or
intend to use, the zinc phosphating process on aluminum described in
the MOU, are eligible to participate in the Expedited Delisting
Project. Consistent with the MOU, the facility must submit to the EPA
and the MDEQ a letter requesting to participate in the Expedited
Delisting Project to delist its F019 wastewater treatment sludge.
In January 2002, a total of 14 facilities requested to participate
in the project. In February of 2002, MDEQ, with EPA approval, notified
11 plants \1\ that they are eligible to participate in the Expedited
Delisting Project. Of the 11 participating facilities, the following
are currently using aluminum and are generating F019 waste: Ford Motor
Company--Michigan Truck Plant and Wayne Integrated Stamping and
Assembly Plant, 38303 Michigan Avenue/37625 Michigan Avenue, Wayne, MI
48184, RCRA ID No. MID 000809228/MID 0005379706; Ford Motor Company--
Wixom Assembly Plant, 28801 Wixom Road, Wixom, MI 48393, RCRA ID No.
MID 005379714; General Motors--Flint Truck, G-3100 Van Slyke Road,
Flint, MI 48551, RCRA ID No. MID005356951; General Motors--Hamtramck,
2500 E. General Motors Blvd., Detroit, MI 48211, RCRA ID No.
MID980795488; General Motors--Pontiac East, 2100 S. Opdyke Road,
Pontiac, MI 48341, RCRA ID No. MID0053546902; Trigen/Cinergy-USFOS of
Lansing LLC at General Motors Corporation--Lansing Grand River, 920
Townsend Ave., Lansing, MI 48921, RCRA ID No. MIK211915624. The
following participating facilities are not yet using aluminum and do
not generate F019 at this time: Ford Motor Company--Dearborn Assembly
Plant, 3001 Miller Road, Dearborn, MI 48121, RCRA ID No. MID 000809764;
Auto Alliance International Inc. (Ford/Mazda Joint Venture Company), 1
International Drive, Flat Rock, MI 84134-9498, RCRA ID No. MID
981953912; DaimlerChrysler--Jefferson North Assembly Plant, 2101 Conner
Avenue, Detroit, MI 84215, RCRA ID No. MID985569987; DaimlerChrysler--
Warren Truck Assembly Plant, 21500 Mound Round, Warren, MI 48091, RCRA
ID No. MID005358007; DaimlerChrysler--Sterling Heights Assembly Plant,
38111 Van Dyke, Sterling Heights, MI 48312, RCRA ID No. MID980896690.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Three facilities withdrew their requests to participate at
this time, but may request to participate in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. How Does the Project Address Wastes Not Yet Generated?
The project will include some facilities which do not yet perform
the conversion coating on aluminum resulting in F019. We grant up-front
delistings for wastes that have not yet been generated, but will be
generated in the future, based on available data (e.g. pilot scale
system data). Consistent with previous up-front delistings, the up-
front delistings proposed today will be contingent upon verification
testing of the waste water treatment sludge once the facility begins
conversion coating on aluminum (see section V.A., Conditions for
Exclusion).
E. What Is the Standard Automotive Assembly Plant Process That
Generates F019 Waste?
F019 is a wastewater treatment sludge generated from rinses and
overflows from the conversion coating of aluminum. Wastewaters from
other automobile assembly operations, including electrocoating and
spray booth operations, are commingled with the conversion coating
wastewater prior to treatment. The conversion coating, electrocoating
and spray booth operations which may contribute constituents of concern
in the sludge are summarized in this section.
Prior to the zinc phosphating process, fully assembled metal car
bodies, parts, and spaceframe assemblies are cleaned with various
alkaline cleaners, surfactants, and/or organic detergents. Following
cleaning, rinse conditioners are employed to create nucleation sites
prior to conversion coating. In the conversion coating step, parts are
sprayed with or immersed in a zinc phosphate solution to create a
uniform surface for painting. A sealer may be applied after conversion
coating and a buffer is sometimes added during this step. Rinses and
overflows from the conversion coating process are likely to contain
trivalent chromium, nickel, and zinc. The zinc phosphating process used
at these facilities today does not use hexavalent chromium or cyanide,
for which F019 was originally listed.
[[Page 10345]]
Following the phosphating process, the metal parts are immersed in
a bath where an electrocoating of paint is applied. Any undeposited
paint is rinsed and recovered in subsequent stages prior to oven
baking.
After conversion coating and electrocoating, various paints and top
coats are applied to the automobile bodies/parts in spray booths. Some
facilities use a water curtain to control emissions which is discharged
to the wastewater treatment plant.
Overflows and rinse water from the electrocoating process and
wastewater from the paint booths can contain hazardous constituents
such as metals, organic solvents or formaldehyde.
Typical wastewater treatment plant operations begin with separation
of large particles. The wastewater is then sent to various thickeners
and clarifiers where water and solids are further separated. The pH of
the wastewater might be adjusted and flocculents and coagulants may be
added to facilitate the thickening process. The sludge from the
thickeners and clarifiers is dewatered in a filter press.
F. What Information Will Each Facility Submit Under the Project?
Each facility participating in the project must submit a brief
written application, consistent with the MOU, demonstrating that its
waste qualifies for exclusion or delisting (the ``exclusion
demonstration'').\2\ The exclusion demonstration must show the
following on the basis of sampling data consistent with the approved
sampling and analysis plan: (1) That the wastewater treatment sludge
meets the criteria set forth in the Table of Maximum Allowable
Concentrations; (2) that the wastewater treatment sludge is not
characteristically hazardous waste under 40 CFR part 261, subpart C;
and (3) that the wastewater treatment sludge does not contain other
hazardous waste listed under part 261, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Trigen/Cinergy-USFOS of Lansing LLC (Trigen) must submit its
exclusion demonstration jointly with GM. Trigen must also certify,
in accordance with 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12), that (1) the Trigen
wastewater treatment plant is located on the GM Lansing Grand River
facility property and (2) the Trigen wastewater treatment plant does
not receive any waste or wastewater from sources other than the GM
Lansing Grand River facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each exclusion demonstration shall also include the following: (1)
All sampling data required by and consistent with the approved sampling
and analysis plan; (2) a description of the waste, including, but not
limited to, (i) any factors which may cause the waste to be a hazardous
waste, and (ii) the maximum annual quantities of waste covered by the
demonstration; (3) a statement that the facility is an automobile
assembly facility using the standard manufacturing processes as stated
in the MOU; \3\ (4) an assertion that the F019 waste does not meet the
criteria for which this type of waste was listed as a hazardous waste;
(5) the certification as required by Sec. 260.22(i)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ To the extent that a participating facility's process
differs from the process set forth in the MOU, the facility shall
describe any such differences that might result in a hazardous
constituent being present in the wastewater treatment sludge that is
not covered by the demonstration, i.e., not included in the Table of
Maximum Allowable Concentrations. Facilities that identify
differences that the EPA believes will not materially impact
wastewater treatment sludge quality may still be considered for
delisting consistent with the time frame set forth in section III.H,
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. What Is Required by the Project's Sampling and Analysis Plan?
The sampling and analysis plan describes the sampling objectives,
sampling strategy, collection procedures, and quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) procedures in detail. The plan also discusses the
procedures that all facilities participating in the project will use
for sample labeling and documentation, equipment preparation and
cleaning, and sample shipment. Each facility will collect composite
samples from each of six roll-off boxes of wastewater treatment sludge
over at least six weeks at each facility.
When aluminum is first conversion coated at a facility which does
not currently use aluminum, the facility will collect initial
verification samples from each of four roll-off boxes and will analyze
them for the constituents of concern. When production using conversion
coating on aluminum first reaches 50 units a day, additional samples
from each of four roll-off boxes will be collected and analyzed for the
constituents of concern.
Each facility will also conduct quarterly verification sampling.
All data collected must include the appropriate QA/QC information
and be subject to data validation as described in the approved sampling
and analysis plan. Each facility will submit the analytical methods and
detection levels to be used prior to sampling.
The sampling and analysis plan is an appendix to the MOU for the
Expedited Delisting Project and is available in the docket.
H. When Would EPA Finalize the Proposed Delistings?
HSWA specifically requires EPA to provide notice and an opportunity
for comment before granting or denying a final exclusion. Thus, EPA
will not make a final decision or grant an exclusion until it has
considered and addressed all timely public comments on today's
proposal, including any comments made at public hearings. For those
facilities named in today's proposal which submit their exclusion
demonstrations in a timely manner, EPA Region 5 will decide whether or
not to exclude their waste within 128 days after the close of the
public comment period. The exclusions will become effective on the
publication date of the final rule in the Federal Register.
Since these rules would reduce the existing requirements, the
regulated community does not need a six-month period to come into
compliance in accordance with section 3010 of RCRA as amended by HSWA.
I. What Support Is MDEQ Providing EPA in Implementing the Project?
MDEQ will be providing important assistance to EPA during the life
of the project. MDEQ will provide technical support in reviewing
exclusion demonstrations and all verification sampling data and will
participate in periodic evaluations of the project.
IV. EPA's Evaluation of Waste Information and Data
A. What Information and Analyses Did EPA Consider in Developing These
Proposed Delistings?
The EPA reviewed existing data submitted in support of five
petitions to delist automotive assembly plant F019 sludge. Three were
granted by EPA: GM in Lake Orion, Michigan (62 FR 55344, October 24,
1997); GM in Lansing, Michigan (65 FR 31096, May 16, 2000); and BMW
Manufacturing Corporation in Greer, South Carolina (66 FR 21877, May 2,
2001). Petitions to exclude F019 at GM plants located in Lordstown,
Ohio and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma have not been acted upon by EPA. The
F019 waste from these facilities was sampled in accordance with
approved sampling and analysis plans and analyzed for a comprehensive
list of constituents. These analyses included total and Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) analysis for volatile and
semivolatile organic compounds and metals. These wastes were also
analyzed for cyanide, sulfide, fluoride, formaldehyde, pH, and other
parameters.
EPA also considered an industry database submitted jointly by the
Aluminum Association and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. This
database contained waste data generated
[[Page 10346]]
over ten years and included a range of analyses of F019 and non-F019
wastewater treatment plant sludge generated at some automotive assembly
plants. The analytes and number of samples collected varied by plant
and the database did not include QA/QC information.
EPA used the available historical data in conjunction with a fate
and transport model to define a list of approximately 70 constituents
of concern for the exclusion demonstration analysis. Specifically, EPA
compared the maximum observed concentration of any hazardous
constituent detected at least once in any of the historical data to the
most conservative delisting levels developed for the project. EPA
identified a constituent for analysis if the observed value was within
three orders of magnitude of this delisting level. The list of 70
constituents of concern also included the non-pesticide constituents in
40 CFR 261.24 and constituents associated with painting operations.
B. How Did EPA Establish Risk Levels for These Wastes?
In developing this proposal, we considered the original listing
criteria and the additional factors required by the HSWA. See section
222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(2)-(4). We
evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors
cited in 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2) and (3). These factors include: (1)
Whether the waste is considered acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity of the
constituents; (3) the concentration of the constituents in the waste;
(4) the tendency of the hazardous constituents to migrate and to
bioaccumulate; (5) its persistence in the environment once released
from the waste; (6) plausible and specific types of management of the
petitioned waste; (7) the quantity of waste produced; and (8) waste
variability.
Consistent with previous proposed delistings, EPA identified
plausible exposure routes (ground water, surface water, air) for
hazardous constituents present in the petitioned waste based on
improper management of a Subtitle D landfill. To evaluate the waste, we
used the Delisting Risk Assessment Software program (DRAS), a Windows
based software tool, to estimate the potential release of hazardous
constituents from the waste and to predict the risk associated with
those releases. For a detailed description of the DRAS program and
revisions see 65 FR 58015, September 27, 2000; 65 FR 59000, November 7,
2000; and 65 FR 75879, December 5, 2000.
Today's proposal contains one proposed revision to the DRAS
program. Previously, the Henry's Law Constant used to estimate the
volatilization rate of formaldehyde in groundwater for the shower-
inhalation scenario was estimated using a relationship based on
molecular weight, solubility, and pure vapor pressure taken from the
Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods, W.J. Lyman, W.F.
Reehl, and D.H. Rosenblatt, 1982, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York,
New York. In 1988, Eric A. Betterton and Michael R. Hoffman published
Henry's Law Constants of Some Environmentally Important Aldehydes in
Environmental Science and Technology, Volume 22, Number 12, in which
observed Henry's Law constants for low concentrations of aldehydes in
water were lower than those expected using the earlier relationship.
These empirical results reflect the increased affinity for water by
formaldehyde. We believe these empirical results more accurately
reflect the conditions modeled in the DRAS groundwater inhalation
scenario and we are using the revised Henry's Law constant for this
proposal. A technical support document for the DRAS program, as well as
documentation of the formaldehyde references, are available in the
docket.
C. What Are the Maximum Allowable Concentrations of Hazardous
Constituents in the Waste?
The following table gives the maximum allowable concentration
levels for the 70 constituents of concern based on a target cancer risk
of 1 x 10-\6\ and a target hazard quotient of one. The
levels are expressed both as total constituent concentrations and TCLP
concentrations. Since the allowable levels are dependent on the annual
volume generated, the table includes allowable levels at three
different volumes which span the typical range of waste generated. The
table also includes the maximum allowable groundwater concentration
expected at the disposal site.
Table of Maximum Allowable Concentrations Expedited Delisting Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum allowable concentrations in the waste Maximum
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ allowable
1000 cubic yards 2000 cubic yards 3000 cubic yards groundwater
Constituent CAS # ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ concentration
Total (mg/ Total (mg/ Total (mg/ (g/
kg) TCLP (mg/L) kg) TCLP (mg/L) kg) TCLP (mg/L) L)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
acetone....................................... 67-64-1 NA 375 NA 228 NA 171 3,750
acetonitrile.................................. 75-05-8 NA 64.2 NA 39.2 NA 29.3 643
acrylonitrile................................. 107-13-1 6,370 0.0128 4,120 0.0078 3,200 0.00584 0.135
allyl chloride................................ 107-05-1 2,540 0.563 1,640 0.344 1,270 0.257 10.7
benzene....................................... 71-43-2 NA 0.238 NA 0.145 NA 0.109 2.50
carbon tetrachloride.......................... 56-23-5 NA 0.0738 NA 0.045 NA 0.0337 0.562
chlorobenzene................................. 108-90-7 NA 9.98 NA 6.08 NA 4.56 100
chloroform.................................... 67-66-3 NA 0.128 6,530 0.0779 5,080 0.0583 1.35
1,1 dichloroethane............................ 75-34-3 NA 19.7 NA 12 NA 9 3,750
1,2 dichloroethane............................ 107-06-2 NA 0.00422 NA 0.00257 9,800 0.00193 0.800
1,1-dichloroethylene.......................... 75-35-4 1,340 0.015 867 0.00702 674 0.00526 0.122
cis-1,2 dichloroethylene...................... 156-59-2 NA 6.98 NA 4.26 NA 3.19 70.0
trans-1,2 dichloroethylene.................... 156-60-5 NA 9.98 NA 6.08 NA 4.56 100
ethylbenzene.................................. 100-41-4 NA 69.8 NA 42.6 NA 31.9 700
formaldehyde.................................. 50-00-0 1,070 138 689 84.2 535 63 1,380
methyl chloride (chloromethane)............... 74-87-3 5,760 0.295 3,720 0.180 2,890 0.135 5.63
methyl ethyl ketone........................... 78-93-3 NA 200 NA 200 NA 200 22,600
methyl isobutyl ketone........................ 108-10-1 NA 300 NA 183 NA 137 3,000
[[Page 10347]]
methyl methacrylate........................... 80-62-6 NA NA NA NA NA 7,690 52,700
methylene chloride............................ 75-09-2 NA 0.473 NA 0.288 NA 0.216 5
n-butyl alcohol............................... 71-36-3 NA 375 NA 228 NA 171 3,750
styrene....................................... 100-42-5 NA 9.98 NA 6.08 NA 4.56 100
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane..................... 630-20-6 NA 0.399 NA 0.243 NA 0.182 2.81
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane..................... 79-34-5 274 0.720 152 0.439 108 0.329 0.366
tetrachloroethylene........................... 127-18-4 NA 0.14 NA 0.0855 NA 0.064 1.40
toluene....................................... 108-88-3 NA 99.8 NA 60.8 NA 45.6 1,000
1,1,1-trichloroethane......................... 71-55-6 NA 20 NA 12.2 NA 9.11 200
1,1,2-trichloroethane......................... 79-00-5 NA 0.128 NA 0.078 NA 0.0584 1.28
trichloroethylene............................. 79-01-6 NA 0.5 NA 0.304 NA 0.228 5.00
vinyl acetate................................. 108-05-4 NA 1,440 NA 879 NA 658 15,200
vinyl chloride................................ 75-01-4 178 0.00384 115 0.00234 89.4 0.00175 0.0384
xylene........................................ 95-47-6 NA 998 NA 608 NA 456 10,000
108-38-3
106-42-3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
acrylamide.................................... 79-06-1 2,940 0.00196 2,710 0.0012 2,580 0.0009 0.0163
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate................... 117-81-7 NA 0.147 NA 0.0896 NA 0.0671 1.47
butyl benzyl phthalate........................ 85-68-7 NA 152 NA 92.9 NA 69.6 1,450
o-cresol...................................... 95-48-7 NA 187 NA 114 NA 85.5 1,875
m-cresol...................................... 108-39-4 NA 187 NA 114 NA 85.5 1,875
p-cresol...................................... 106-44-5 NA 18.7 NA 11.4 NA 8.55 188
1,4-dichlorobenzene........................... 106-46-7 NA 0.227 NA 0.139 NA 0.104 2.40
2,4-dimethylphenol............................ 105-67-9 NA 74.9 NA 45.7 NA 34.2 750
2,4-dinitrotoluene............................ 121-14-2 NA 0.0107 NA 0.00654 NA 0.0049 0.107
di-n-octyl phthalate.......................... 117-84-0 NA 0.184 NA 0.112 NA 0.0839 1.30
hexachlorobenzene............................. 118-74-1 2.84 0.000159 1.58 9.67 x 10-5 1.12 7.24 x 10-5 0.00168
hexachlorobutadiene........................... 87-68-3 537 0.0158 299 0.00961 212 0.0072 0.167
hexachloroethane.............................. 67-72-1 NA 0.289 NA 0.176 NA 0.132 3.06
naphthalene................................... 91-20-3 NA 24.5 NA 15 NA 11.2 246
nitrobenzene.................................. 98-95-3 NA 1.87 NA 1.14 NA 0.855 18.8
pentachlorophenol............................. 87-86-5 4,980 0.00672 2,770 0.004 1,960 0.00307 0.0711
pyridine...................................... 110-86-1 NA 3.75 NA 2.28 NA 1.71 37.4
2,4,5-trichlorophenol......................... 95-95-4 NA 150 NA 91.6 NA 68.6 1,500
2,4,6-trichlorophenol......................... 88-06-2 NA 0.453 NA 0.276 NA 0.207 4.79
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
antimony...................................... 7440-36-0 NA 1.08 NA 0.659 NA 0.494 6.00
arsenic....................................... 7440-38-2 8,820 0.492 8,140 0.3 7,740 0.224 4.87
barium........................................ 7440-39-3 NA 100 NA 100 NA 100 2,000
beryllium..................................... 7440-41-7 NA 2.18 NA 1.33 NA 0.998 4.00
cadmium....................................... 7440-43-9 NA 0.788 NA 0.48 NA 0.36 5.00
chromium...................................... 7440-47-3 NA 5 NA 4.95 NA 3.71 100
cobalt........................................ 7440-48-4 NA 118 NA 72.1 NA 54 2,250
lead.......................................... 7439-92-1 NA 5 NA 5 NA 5 15.0
mercury....................................... 7439-97-6 16 0.2 8.92 0.2 6.34 0.2 2.00
nickel........................................ 7440-02-0 NA 148 NA 90.5 NA 67.8 750
selenium...................................... 7782-49-2 NA 1.0 NA 1.0 NA 1.0 50.0
silver........................................ 7440-22-4 NA 5.0 NA 5.0 NA 5.0 187
thallium...................................... 7440-28-0 NA 0.462 NA 0.282 NA 0.211 2.00
tin........................................... 7440-31-5 NA 1,180 NA 721 NA 540 22,500
vanadium...................................... 7440-62-2 NA 111 NA 67.6 NA 50.6 263
zinc.......................................... 7440-66-6 NA 1,470 NA 898 NA 673 11,300
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
corrosivity (pH).............................. NA 2.0 pH 12.5 See 40 CFR 261.22 NA
cyanide....................................... 57-12-5 18.9 11.5 8.63 200
ignitability.................................. NA flashpoint > 140 deg.F See 40 CFR 261.21 NA
reactivity.................................... NA See 40 CFR 261.23 NA
sulfide....................................... 18496-25-8 See 40 CFR 261.23 NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA: The program did not calculate a delisting level for this constituent, or the delisting level was higher than those levels expected to be found in
the waste. In the event high levels are discovered, the constituent will be evaluated and a delisting level set in accordance with the methodology
used to set delisting levels for the other constituents.
[[Page 10348]]
Total cyanide and sulfide analysis will also be conducted, although delisting levels for total concentrations have not been established for cyanide and
sulfide. The results will be used to support a qualitative statement by the petitioner that the waste is not reactive as defined in 40 CFR 261.23.
D. How Will EPA Evaluate the Exclusion Demonstration?
EPA will confirm that sample collection, data analysis, and
elements of QA/QC analysis are in accordance with the approved sampling
and analysis plan. EPA will compare the maximum value of each
constituent detected at a given facility to the maximum allowable
concentration levels set forth in this proposal.
The EPA will use the DRAS program to estimate the aggregate cancer
risk and hazard index for each facility's waste. The aggregate cancer
risk is the cumulative total of all individual constituent cancer
risks. The hazard index is a similar cumulative total of non-cancer
effects. The target aggregate cancer risk is 1 x 10-\5\
and the target hazard index is one.
In addition, EPA will review any process information which differs
from the standard process described above.
V. Conditions for Exclusion
A. How Will the Petitioners Manage the Waste if It Is Delisted?
If the petitioned waste is delisted, the facility must dispose of
it in a lined landfill with leachate collection, which is licensed,
permitted, or otherwise authorized to accept the delisted wastewater
treatment sludge in accordance with 40 CFR part 258 and certify to this
annually.
The facilities granted an up-front exclusion must conduct initial
verification testing. These facilities must handle the wastewater
treatment sludge generated after aluminum parts are first subjected to
conversion coating as hazardous until 15 calendar days after EPA
receives the initial verification data. If EPA notifies the facility
during the 15-day period that the data is unacceptable, the facility
must continue the handle the waste as hazardous.
B. How Frequently Must Each Facility Test the Waste?
After the exclusion becomes effective, and any necessary inital
verification testing has been completed, each facility shall collect
and analyze a representative sample on a quarterly basis to verify that
the waste continues to meet the requirements of this proposal. The
sample must be collected in accordance with the approved sampling plan.
The verification samples need to be analyzed for only those
constituents which were originally detected in the exclusion
demonstration.
Each facility must submit the verification data on an annual basis.
The annual submittal of verification data and disposal certification
must be made to both Region 5 Waste Management Branch, U.S. EPA, at 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Mail Code DW-8J, Chicago, Illinois 60604 and
MDEQ, Waste Management Division, Hazardous Waste Program Section, at
P.O. Box 30241, Lansing, Michigan 48909. The facility must compile,
summarize, and maintain on site for a minimum of five years records of
operating conditions and analytical data. The facility must make these
records available for inspection. All data must be accompanied by a
signed copy of the certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).
C. What Must the Facility Do if the Process Changes?
If a facility significantly changes the manufacturing process, the
treatment process, or the chemicals used, the facility may not handle
the sludge generated from the new process under this exclusion until it
has demonstrated to the EPA that the waste meets the criteria set in
section IV.C and that no new hazardous constituents listed in appendix
VIII of 40 CFR part 261 have been introduced. The facility must manage
wastes generated after the process change as hazardous waste until it
receives written approval for continuance of the exclusion from the
Agency.
D. What Happens if a Facility's Waste Fails To Meet the Conditions of
the Exclusion?
If a facility with sludge excluded under this project violates the
terms and conditions established in the exclusion, the Agency may
suspend the exclusion or may start procedures to withdraw the
exclusion.
If the quarterly testing of the waste does not meet the delisting
levels described in section IV.C above, the facility must notify the
EPA and MDEQ immediately at the addresses listed in section V.B, above.
The exclusion will be suspended and the waste managed as hazardous
until the facility has received written approval for continuance of the
exclusion from the Agency. The facility may provide any information and
sampling results that support the continuation of the delisting
exclusion.
The EPA has the authority under RCRA and the Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et seq. (APA), to reopen a
delisting decision if we receive information indicating that the
conditions of this exclusion have been violated.
VI. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory
actions.
The proposal to grant an exclusion is not significant, 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, thus enabling a facility
to manage its waste as nonhazardous.
Because there is no additional impact from today's proposed rule,
this proposal would not be a significant regulation, and no cost/
benefit assessment is required. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has also exempted this rule from the requirement for OMB review
under section (6) of Executive Order 12866.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under 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 (that is, small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). No regulatory
flexibility analysis is required, however, if the Administrator or
delegated representative certifies that the rule will not have any
impact on 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 and would be limited to eleven
facilities. Accordingly, the Agency certifies 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.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated
[[Page 10349]]
with this proposed rule have been approved by the OMB under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-511,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2050-
0053.
IX. 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, EPA 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.
The EPA finds that today's delisting decision is deregulatory in
nature and does not impose any enforceable duty on any state, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector estimated to cost $100 million
or more in any one year. In addition, the proposed delisting decision
does not establish any regulatory requirements for small governments
and so does not require a small government agency plan under UMRA
section 203.
X. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local,
or tribal government, unless the federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the OMB a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected state, local, and tribal governments, the
nature of their concerns, copies of written communications from the
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not
create a mandate on state, local or tribal governments. The rule does
not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to
this rule.
XI. Executive Order 13045
The Executive Order 13045 is entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This order applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) is
economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This
proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this is
not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866.
XII. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments.
If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the OMB, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation.
In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to meaningful and timely input'' in the
development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities of Indian tribal governments. This
action does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian
Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive
Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
XIII. National Technology Transfer And Advancement Act
Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act, the Agency is directed to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (for example,
materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business
practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standard bodies. Where EPA does not use available and potentially
applicable voluntary consensus standards, the Act requires the Agency
to provide Congress, through the OMB, an explanation of the reasons for
not using such standards.
This rule does not establish any new technical standards, and thus
the Agency has no need to consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards in developing this final rule.
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: February 22, 2002.
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:
[[Page 10350]]
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 streams 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 and address Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
Auto Alliance International Inc. Waste water treatment plant sludge,
(Ford/Mazda Joint Venture F019, that is generated by Auto
Company)--Flat Rock, Michigan. Alliance International Inc., Flat
Rock, Michigan at a maximum annual
rate of (insert annual volume)
cubic yards per year. The sludge
must be disposed of in a lined
landfill with leachate collection,
which is licensed, permitted, or
otherwise authorized to accept the
delisted wastewater treatment
sludge in accordance with 40 CFR
part 258. The exclusion becomes
effective as of (insert final
publication date).
1. Delisting Levels: The total
constituent concentrations and TCLP
concentrations measured in any
sample may not exceed the following
levels: (insert constituents and
delisting levels from section IV.C
of the preamble)
2. Initial Verification Testing: a.
When aluminum parts are first
subjected to conversion coating,
the facility must collect 4
additional samples and analyze them
for the constituents listed in
paragraph (1) using the
methodologies specified in an EPA-
approved sampling plan. The
facility must manage as hazardous
all wastewater treatment sludge
generated after aluminum parts are
first subjected to conversion
coating, until 15 calendar days
after EPA receives valid data
demonstrating that paragraph (1) is
satisfied, unless EPA notifies the
facility during the 15-day period
that the data is unacceptable.
b. When production using conversion
coating on aluminum first reaches
50 units a day, the facility must
collect 4 additional samples and
analyze them for the constituents
listed in paragraph (1) using the
methodologies specified in an EPA-
approved sampling plan.
c. The verification data required in
paragraphs (2.a) and (2.b) must be
submitted as soon as the data
becomes available.
3. Quarterly Verification Testing:
After the facility satisfies the
requirements of paragraph (2.a), it
must, on a quarterly basis, collect
and analyze one sample of the waste
for the constituents detected in
pre-aluminum sampling and the
sampling required in paragraph (2)
using the methodologies specified
in an EPA-approved sampling plan.
4. Changes in Operating Conditions:
The facility must notify the EPA in
writing if the manufacturing
process, the chemicals used in the
manufacturing process, the
treatment process, or the chemicals
used in the treatment process
significantly change. The facility
must handle wastes generated after
the process change as hazardous
until it has demonstrated that the
wastes continue to meet the
delisting levels and that no new
hazardous constituents listed in
appendix VIII of part 261 have been
introduced and it has received
written approval from EPA.
5. Data Submittals: The facility
must submit the data obtained
through verification testing or as
required by other conditions of
this rule to both U.S. EPA Region
5, Waste Management Branch (DW-8J),
77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL
60604 and MDEQ, Waste Management
Division, Hazardous Waste Program
Section, at P.O. Box 30241,
Lansing, Michigan 48909. The
quarterly verification data and
certification of proper disposal
must be submitted annually upon the
anniversary of the effective date
of this exclusion. The facility
must compile, summarize, and
maintain on site for a minimum of
five years records of operating
conditions and analytical data. The
facility must make these records
available for inspection. All data
must be accompanied by a signed
copy of the certification statement
in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).
6. Reopener Language--(a) If,
anytime after disposal of the
delisted waste, the facility
possesses or is otherwise made
aware of any 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 paragraph
(1) is at a level in the leachate
higher than the delisting level
established in paragraph (1), or is
at a level in the groundwater
higher than the point of exposure
groundwater levels referenced by
the model, then the facility 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.
[[Page 10351]]
(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 30 days from
the date of the Regional
Administrator's notice to present
the information.
(d) If after 30 days the facility
presents no further information,
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.
DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Waste water treatment plant sludge,
Jefferson North Assembly Plant-- F019, that is generated by
Detroit, Michigan. DaimlerChrysler Corporation at the
Jefferson North Assembly Plant,
Detroit, Michigan at a maximum
annual rate of (insert annual
volume) cubic yards per year. The
sludge must be disposed of in a
lined landfill with leachate
collection, which is licensed,
permitted, or otherwise authorized
to accept the delisted wastewater
treatment sludge in accordance with
40 CFR part 258. The exclusion
becomes effective as of (insert
final publication date). The
conditions in paragraphs (1)
through (6) for Auto Alliance
International Inc., Flat Rock,
Michigan apply.
DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Waste water treatment plant sludge,
Sterling Heights Assembly Plant-- F019, that is generated by
Sterling Heights, Michigan. DaimlerChrysler Corporation at the
Sterling Heights Assembly Plant,
Sterling Heights, Michigan at a
maximum annual rate of (insert
annual volume) cubic yards per
year. The sludge must be disposed
of in a lined landfill with
leachate collection, which is
licensed, permitted, or otherwise
authorized to accept the delisted
wastewater treatment sludge in
accordance with 40 CFR part 258.
The exclusion becomes effective as
of (insert final publication date).
The conditions in paragraphs (1)
through (6) for Auto Alliance
International Inc., Flat Rock,
Michigan apply.
DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Waste water treatment plant sludge,
Warren Truck Assembly Plant-- F019, that is generated by
Warren, Michigan. DaimlerChrysler Corporation at the
Warren Truck Assembly Plant,
Warren, Michigan at a maximum
annual rate of (insert annual
volume) cubic yards per year. The
sludge must be disposed of in a
lined landfill with leachate
collection, which is licensed,
permitted, or otherwise authorized
to accept the delisted wastewater
treatment sludge in accordance with
40 CFR part 258. The exclusion
becomes effective as of (insert
final publication date). The
conditions in paragraphs (1)
through (6) for Auto Alliance
International Inc., Flat Rock,
Michigan apply.
Ford Motor Company, Dearborn Waste water treatment plant sludge,
Assembly Plant--Dearborn, F019, that is generated by Ford
Michigan. Motor Company at the Dearborn
Assembly Plant, Dearborn, Michigan
at a maximum annual rate of (insert
annual volume) cubic yards per
year. The sludge must be disposed
of in a lined landfill with
leachate collection, which is
licensed, permitted, or otherwise
authorized to accept the delisted
wastewater treatment sludge in
accordance with 40 CFR part 258.
The exclusion becomes effective as
of (insert final publication date).
The conditions in paragraphs (1)
through (6) for Auto Alliance
International Inc., Flat Rock,
Michigan apply.
Ford Motor Company, Michigan Truck Waste water treatment plant sludge,
Plant and Wayne Integrated F019, that is generated by Ford
Stamping and Assembly Plant-- Motor Company at the Wayne
Wayne, Michigan. Integrated Stamping and Assembly
Plant from wastewaters from both
the Wayne Integrated Stamping and
Assembly Plant and the Michigan
Truck Plant, Wayne, Michigan at a
maximum annual rate of (insert
annual volume) cubic yards per
year. The sludge must be disposed
of in a lined landfill with
leachate collection, which is
licensed, permitted, or otherwise
authorized to accept the delisted
wastewater treatment sludge in
accordance with 40 CFR part 258.
The exclusion becomes effective as
of (insert final publication date).
1. Delisting Levels: The total
constituent concentrations and TCLP
concentrations measured in any
sample may not exceed the following
levels: (insert constituents of
concern and delisting levels based
on the annual volume of waste).
2. Quarterly Verification Testing:
The facility must show that the
waste does not contain constituents
listed in paragraph (1) that exceed
the delisting levels specified in
paragraph (1) by collecting and
analyzing one waste sample on a
quarterly basis. The samples must
be collected and analyzed in
accordance with the approved
sampling plan.
3. Other Conditions: The conditions
in paragraphs (4) through (6) for
Auto Alliance International Inc.,
Flat Rock, Michigan also apply.
Ford Motor Company, Wixom Assembly Waste water treatment plant sludge,
Plant--Wixom, Michigan. F019, that is generated by Ford
Motor Company at the Wixom Assembly
Plant, Wixom, Michigan at a maximum
annual rate of (insert annual
volume) cubic yards per year. The
sludge must be disposed of in a
lined landfill with leachate
collection, which is licensed,
permitted, or otherwise authorized
to accept the delisted wastewater
treatment sludge in accordance with
40 CFR Part 258. The exclusion
becomes effective as of (insert
final publication date).
[[Page 10352]]
1. Delisting Levels: The total
constituent concentrations and TCLP
concentrations measured in any
sample may not exceed the following
levels: (insert constituents of
concern and delisting levels based
on the annual volume of waste).
2. Quarterly Verification Testing:
The facility must show that the
waste does not contain constituents
listed in paragraph (1) that exceed
the delisting levels specified in
paragraph (1) by collecting and
analyzing one waste sample on a
quarterly basis. The samples must
be collected and analyzed in
accordance with the approved
sampling plan.
3. Other Conditions: The conditions
in paragraphs (4) through (6) for
Auto Alliance International Inc.,
Flat Rock, Michigan also apply.
General Motors Corporation, Flint Waste water treatment plant sludge,
Truck--Flint, Michigan. F019, that is generated by General
Motors Corporation at Flint Truck,
Flint, Michigan at a maximum annual
rate of (insert annual volume)
cubic yards per year. The sludge
must be disposed of in a lined
landfill with leachate collection,
which is licensed, permitted, or
otherwise authorized to accept the
delisted wastewater treatment
sludge in accordance with 40 CFR
part 258. The exclusion becomes
effective as of (insert final
publication date).
1. Delisting Levels: The total
constituent concentrations and TCLP
concentrations measured in any
sample may not exceed the following
levels: (insert constituents of
concern and delisting levels based
on the annual volume of waste).
2. Quarterly Verification Testing:
The facility must show that the
waste does not contain constituents
listed in paragraph (1) that exceed
the delisting levels specified in
paragraph (1) by collecting and
analyzing one waste sample on a
quarterly basis. The samples must
be collected and analyzed in
accordance with the approved
sampling plan.
3. Other Conditions: The conditions
in paragraphs (4) through (6) for
Auto Alliance International Inc.,
Flat Rock, Michigan also apply.
General Motors Corporation, Waste water treatment plant sludge,
Hamtramck--Detroit, Michigan. F019, that is generated by General
Motors Corporation at Hamtramck,
Detroit, Michigan at a maximum
annual rate of (annual volume)
cubic yards per year. The sludge
must be disposed of in a lined
landfill with leachate collection,
which is licensed, permitted, or
otherwise authorized to accept the
delisted wastewater treatment
sludge in accordance with 40 CFR
part 258. The exclusion becomes
effective as of (insert final
publication date).
1. Delisting Levels: The total
constituent concentrations and TCLP
concentrations measured in any
sample may not exceed the following
levels: (insert constituents of
concern and delisting levels based
on the annual volume of waste).
2. Quarterly Verification Testing:
The facility must show that the
waste does not contain constituents
listed in paragraph (1) that exceed
the delisting levels specified in
paragraph (1) by collecting and
analyzing one waste sample on a
quarterly basis. The samples must
be collected and analyzed in
accordance with the approved
sampling plan.
3. Other Conditions: The conditions
in paragraphs (4) through (6) for
Auto Alliance International Inc.,
Flat Rock, Michigan also apply.
General Motors Corporation, Waste water treatment plant sludge,
Pontiac East--Pontiac, Michigan. F019, that is generated by General
Motors Corporation at Pontiac East,
Pontiac, Michigan at a maximum
annual rate of (insert annual
volume) cubic yards per year. The
sludge must be disposed of in a
lined landfill with leachate
collection, which is licensed,
permitted, or otherwise authorized
to accept the delisted wastewater
treatment sludge in accordance with
40 CFR part 258. The exclusion
becomes effective as of (insert
final publication date).
1. Delisting Levels: The total
constituent concentrations and TCLP
concentrations measured in any
sample may not exceed the following
levels: (insert constituents of
concern and delisting levels based
on the annual volume of waste).
2. Quarterly Verification Testing:
The facility must show that the
waste does not contain constituents
listed in paragraph (1) that exceed
the delisting levels specified in
paragraph (1) by collecting and
analyzing one waste sample on a
quarterly basis. The samples must
be collected and analyzed in
accordance with the approved
sampling plan.
3. Other Conditions: The conditions
in paragraphs (4) through (6) for
Auto Alliance International Inc.,
Flat Rock, Michigan also apply.
Trigen/Cinergy-USFOS of Lansing Waste water treatment plant sludge,
LLC at General Motors F019, that is generated at General
Corporation, Lansing Grand River-- Motors Corporation's Lansing Grand
Lansing, Michigan. River (GM--Grand River) facility by
Trigen/Cinergy-USFOS of Lansing LLC
exclusively from wastewaters from
GM--Grand River, Lansing, Michigan
at a maximum annual rate of (insert
annual volume) cubic yards per
year. The sludge must be disposed
of in a lined landfill with
leachate collection, which is
licensed, permitted, or otherwise
authorized to accept the delisted
wastewater treatment sludge in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 258.
The exclusion becomes effective as
of (insert final publication date).
1. Delisting Levels: The total
constituent concentrations and TCLP
concentrations measured in any
sample may not exceed the following
levels: (insert constituents of
concern and delisting levels based
on the annual volume of waste).
[[Page 10353]]
2. Quarterly Verification Testing:
The facility must show that the
waste does not contain constituents
listed in paragraph (1) that exceed
the delisting levels specified in
paragraph (1) by collecting and
analyzing one waste sample on a
quarterly basis. The samples must
be collected and analyzed in
accordance with the approved
sampling plan.
3. Other Conditions: The conditions
in paragraphs (4) through (6) for
Auto Alliance International Inc.,
Flat Rock, Michigan also apply.
* * * *
* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 02-5314 Filed 3-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P