[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 66 (Friday, April 6, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17027-17032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1650]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R05-RCRA-2007-0213; SW-FRL-8294-8]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ``the Agency'' or ``we'' in this preamble) is
granting a petition to exclude (or ``delist'') wastewater treatment
plant sludges from conversion coating on aluminum generated by
AutoAlliance International, Inc. (AAI), a Ford/Mazda joint venture
company in Flat Rock, Michigan, from the list of hazardous wastes.
Today's action conditionally excludes the petitioned waste from the
requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of in a lined
Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a
State to manage industrial solid waste. The exclusion was proposed on
March 7, 2002 as part of an expedited process to evaluate this waste
under a pilot project developed with the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ). The rule also imposes testing conditions
for waste generated in the future to ensure that this waste continues
to qualify for delisting.
DATES: This rule is effective on April 6, 2007.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established an electronic docket for this action
under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-RCRA-2007-0213. The electronic docket
contains all relevant documents created after this action was proposed
as well as a selection of pertinent documents from the original paper
docket for the proposed rule, Docket ID No. R5-MIECOS-01. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. All documents in
the electronic docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Publicly available materials from Docket ID No. EPA-R05-RCRA-
2007-0213 are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy. Materials from the original paper
docket, Docket ID No. R5-MIECOS-01, are also available in hard copy.
You can view and copy materials from both dockets at the Records
Center, 7th floor, U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend you telephone
Todd Ramaly at (312) 353-9317 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Ramaly, Waste, Pesticides, and
Toxics Division, (Mail Code: DU-7J), EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd.,
Chicago, IL 60604; telephone number: (312) 353-9317; fax number: (312)
353-4788; e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Background
A. What is a delisting petition?
B. What regulations allow a waste to be delisted?
C. What waste did AAI petition to delist?
II. The Expedited Process for Delisting
A. Why was the expedited process developed for this waste?
B. What is the expedited process to delist F019?
III. EPA's Evaluation of This Petition
A. What information was submitted in support of this petition?
B. How did EPA evaluate the information submitted?
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?
B. Comments received and responses from EPA
V. Final Rule Granting This Petition
A. What decision is EPA finalizing?
B. What are the terms of this exclusion?
C. When is the delisting effective?
D. How does this action affect the states?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. What is a delisting petition?
A delisting petition is a request from a generator to exclude waste
from the list of hazardous wastes under RCRA regulations. In a
delisting petition, the petitioner must show that waste generated at a
particular facility does not meet any of the criteria for which EPA
listed the waste as set forth in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(40 CFR) 261.11 and the background document for the waste. In addition,
a petitioner must demonstrate that the waste does not exhibit any of
the hazardous waste characteristics (that is, ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity, and toxicity) 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. See 40 CFR 260.22, 42
United States Code (U.S.C.) 6921(f) and the background documents for a
listed waste.
Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm that their waste
remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics even
if EPA has ``delisted'' the wastes and to ensure that future generated
wastes meet the conditions set.
[[Page 17028]]
B. What regulations allow a waste to be delisted?
Under 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22, and 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), facilities may
petition the EPA to remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by
excluding them from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR
261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, 40 CFR 260.20 allows any person to
petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts
260 through 266, 268, and 273 of 40 CFR. 40 CFR 260.22 provides a
generator the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a
waste from the lists of hazardous wastes on a ``generator specific''
basis.
C. What waste did AAI petition to delist?
AAI petitioned to exclude wastewater treatment sludges resulting
from a zinc phosphating conversion coating process on car and truck
bodies, which have aluminum components. When treated, the wastewater
from the conversion coating on aluminum results in a listed waste,
F019. The wastewater from the phosphating process entering the
wastewater treatment plant combines with wastewaters from other
operations at the plant including cleaning and rinsing operations,
electrocoating processes, vehicle leak testing, and floor scrubbing.
Wastewaters include alkaline cleaners, surfactants, organic detergents,
rinse conditioners from cleaning operations and overflows and rinse
water from electrocoating. All sludge from the treatment of this
wastewater is regulated as RCRA hazardous waste F019.
II. The Expedited Process for Delisting
A. Why was the expedited process developed for this waste?
Automobile manufacturers are adding aluminum components to
automobile and light truck bodies. When aluminum is conversion coated
in a zinc phosphating process in automobile assembly plants, the
resulting wastewater treatment sludge must be managed as EPA hazardous
waste F019. F019 wastes generated at other auto assembly plants using
the same zinc phosphating and wastewater treatment processes have been
shown 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 for EPA to be more
efficient in evaluating them. Efficiency may be gained and time saved
by using a standardized approach for gathering, submitting and
evaluating data. Therefore, EPA, in conjunction with MDEQ, developed a
pilot project to expedite the delisting process. This approach to
making delisting determinations for this group of facilities is
efficient while still being consistent with current laws and
regulations and protective of human health and the environment.
By removing regulatory controls under RCRA, EPA is facilitating the
use of aluminum in cars. EPA believes that incorporating aluminum in
cars will be advantageous to the environment since lighter cars are
capable of achieving better fuel economy.
B. What is the expedited process to delist F019?
The expedited process to delist F019 is an approach developed
through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with MDEQ for gathering and
evaluating data in support of multiple petitions from automobile
assembly plants. The expedited delisting process is applicable to
wastes generated by automobile and light truck assembly plants in the
State of Michigan which use a similar manufacturing process and
generate similar F019 waste.
Based on available historical data and other information, the
expedited process identified 70 constituents which might be of concern
in the waste and provides that the F019 sludge generated by automobile
assembly plants may be delisted if the levels of the 70 constituents do
not exceed the allowable levels established for each constituent in
this rulemaking. The maximum annual quantity of waste generated by any
single facility that may be covered by an expedited delisting is 3,000
cubic yards. Delisting levels were also proposed for smaller quantities
of 1,000 and 2,000 cubic yards.
III. EPA's Evaluation of This Petition
A. What information was submitted in support of this petition?
AAI submitted certification that its process was the same as the
process described in the MOU between Region 5 and MDEQ. See 67 FR
10341, March 7, 2002. The facility also asserted that its waste does
not meet the criteria for which F019 waste was listed and there are no
other factors that might cause the waste to be hazardous.
To support its exclusion demonstration, AAI collected six samples
representing waste generated over six discreet one-week periods. AAI
stored six roll-off boxes of sludge generated weekly from May 6 through
June 16, 2005. Composite and grab samples were collected from each of
the six roll-off boxes on June 25, 2005. Each sample was analyzed for:
(1) Total analyses of 69 constituents of concern; (2) Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), SW-846 Method 1311, analyses
of 69 constituents of concern; (3) oil and grease; and (4) leachable
metals using the Extraction Procedure for Oily Wastes (OWEP), SW-846
Method 1330A, in lieu of Method 1311 if a sample contained more than 1%
oil and grease. In addition, the pH of each sample was measured and a
determination was made that the waste was not ignitable, corrosive or
reactive (see 40 CFR 261.21-261.23). Although the expedited delisting
project originally required analysis of 70 constituents, analysis of
acrylamide required extreme methods to achieve a detection level at the
level of concern and no acrylamide was detected in any sample analyzed
by the original facilities participating in the expedited delisting
project. Thus, the Agency decided it would not be appropriate to
require analysis for acrylamide. Also, AAI was not required to analyze
for total sulfide and total cyanide as long as they provided the
narrative determination of reactivity required in 40 CFR Part 261.23.
With the exception of the minor changes described above, all sampling
and analyses were done in accordance with the sampling and analysis
plan, which is an appendix to the MOU and is available in the docket
for this rule.
The maximum values of constituents detected in any sample of the
waste (in milligrams per kilogram--mg/kg) and in a TCLP or OWEP
analysis of that waste (in milligrams per liter--mg/L) are summarized
in the following table. The data submitted included the appropriate
quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) information validated by
a third party.
[[Page 17029]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum observed concentration Maximum allowable concentration
Constituent detected -------------------------------------------------------------------- GW
Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L) Total (mg/kg) TCLP*(mg/L) ([mu]g/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
acetone.......................... 8.6 0.43 NA 228 3,750
formaldehyde..................... 4.6 0.23 689 84.2 1,380
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate....... 4.9 <0.005 NA 0.0896 1.47
di-n-octyl phthalate............. 3.3 <0.002 NA 0.112 1.3
o-cresol......................... <1.5 0.0011 NA 114 1,875
p-cresol......................... <1.5 0.005 NA 11.4 188
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
barium........................... 208 <0.35 NA 100 2,000
chromium......................... 58 <0.17 NA 4.95 100
lead............................. 9.7 <0.2 NA 5 15
mercury.......................... <0.1 0.0007 8.92 0.2 2
nickel........................... 1,850 12.8 NA 90.5 750
tin.............................. 184 19.6 NA 721 22,500
zinc............................. 13,300 0.45 NA 898 11,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Or OWEP as applicable.
< Not detected at the specified concentration.
NA not applicable.
B. How did EPA evaluate the information submitted?
EPA compared the analytical results submitted by AAI to the maximum
allowable levels set forth in the proposed rule (67 FR 10341, March 7,
2002). The maximum allowable levels for constituents detected in the
waste or a TCLP extract of the waste are summarized in the table above,
along with the observed levels. The table also includes the maximum
allowable levels in groundwater at a potential receptor well (in
micrograms per liter--[mu]g/L), as evaluated by the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software (DRAS). These levels are the more conservative of
either the Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) or
the health-based value calculated by DRAS based on the target cancer
risk level of 10-\6\. For arsenic, the target cancer risk
was set at 10-\4\ in consideration of the MCL and the
potential for natural occurrence. The maximum allowable groundwater
concentration and delisting level for arsenic correspond to a drinking
water concentration less than one half the current MCL of 10 [mu]g/L.
EPA also used the DRAS program to estimate the aggregate cancer
risk and hazard index for constituents detected in the 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. The wastewater
treatment plant sludge at AAI met both of these criteria based on
maximum observed values.
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?
The EPA received public comments on the proposed notice published
on March 7, 2002 from Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Honda of
America Mfg., Inc., Alcoa Inc., and The Aluminum Association. All
commenters were supportive of the proposal and suggested expanding the
project and revising the listing.
B. Comments Received and Responses From EPA
(1) Comment: EPA should revise the F019 listing to specify that
wastewater treatment sludges from zinc phosphating operations are not
within the scope of the listing. Data gathered as a result of the
Expedited Delisting Project, together with the available historical
data, should provide enough data to fully characterize this waste and
to justify a revision of the listing.
EPA Response: On January 18, 2007 (72 FR 2219), the Agency proposed
to amend the F019 listing to exempt the wastewater treatment sludge
generated from zinc phosphating, when zinc phosphating is used in the
automobile assembly process and provided the waste is disposed in a
landfill unit subject to certain liner design criteria.
(2) Comment: EPA should issue an interpretive rule clarifying that
zinc phosphating operations are outside the scope of the F019 listing.
EPA Response: See response to comment (1) above.
(3) Comment: Automobile assembly facilities outside of Michigan
would like to take advantage of the precedent set by this expedited
delisting project to delist F019 generated by similar operations in
other states and regions.
EPA Response: The Agency believes that the expedited delisting
procedures and requirements set forth in this proposal are appropriate
for similar automotive assembly facilities outside the State of
Michigan, subject to the discretion of the regulatory agency (state or
region).
(4) Comment: Alternatives to landfilling like recycling should be
allowed within the petition process.
EPA Response: The risk assessment model currently used by the
Agency cannot predict the risks from exposure to waste that are managed
through recycling. EPA's conditional delisting policy is that in order
to reduce the uncertainty caused by potential unrestricted use or
management of delisted waste, delistings apply only to wastes managed
in the type of unit (e.g., ``a landfill'') modeled in the delisting
risk assessment. EPA recognizes that several recent rulemakings related
to RCRA-listed hazardous wastes have proposed conditional exemptions
from the regulatory definition of ``solid waste'' when such wastes, by
virtue of their being recycled, are treated more as commodities than as
wastes. For example, see 68 FR 61588, October 28,
[[Page 17030]]
2005. The Agency is not aware of any recycling or reclamation of F019
sludges; therefore, EPA believes that current market conditions do not
support the recycling of F019 waste for the purposes of recovering the
metal content of such waste. EPA has requested comment on whether this
understanding is accurate and whether recycling of F019 waste is
economically feasible under today's market conditions. See 72 FR 2224,
January 18, 2007. If recycling of F019 wastes becomes economically
feasible or beneficial in the future, the Agency will consider its
options for how to address this, including through a subsequent
rulemaking, such as the ongoing rulemaking related to the definition of
solid waste.
(5) Comment: Analytical methods should be specified in the pre-
approved common sampling plan instead of requiring each participant to
submit a site-specific list of methods.
EPA Response: Allowing the petitioner to choose an analytical
method which meets the data quality objectives specific to the
delisting petition provides flexibility. Data quality objectives will
vary depending on the allowable levels that are a function of the
volume of petitioned waste. The Agency believes that the flexibility of
performance based methods results in better data.
(6) Comment: Detection limits should not be required prior to
sampling since they cannot be adequately predicted without a way to
estimate matrix effects.
EPA Response: Although matrix effects cannot be assessed in advance
of laboratory analysis, a laboratory should be able to provide
estimated detection levels and reporting levels which are lower than,
or at least equal to, the allowable delisting level for each
constituent.
(7) Comment: Since the process generating the sludge is extremely
stable, verification sampling should be conducted on an annual, instead
of quarterly, basis. The requirement that any process change is
promptly reported and the exclusion suspended until EPA gives written
approval that the delisting can continue is an adequate safeguard
justifying the decrease in sample event frequency.
EPA Response: Verification data submitted in conjunction with past
delistings of this waste have shown significant variation on a
quarterly basis over longer periods of time. Annual sampling would not
detect such variations. Once enough verification data are collected to
support a statistical analysis, a change in the frequency of
verification sampling and/or sampling parameters may be considered.
(8) Comment: The final Federal Register should make it clear that
assembly plants that manufacture light trucks are also eligible for the
project.
EPA Response: Today's notice specifically defines eligible
facilities as inclusive of manufacturers of light trucks.
(9) Comment: The table of maximum allowable levels in the March 7,
2002 proposed rule contains errors in the columns for vinyl chloride.
EPA Response: A missing space or tab in the table caused the error.
The maximum allowable concentrations proposed for 2,000 cubic yards of
waste should have been 115 mg/kg total and 0.00234 mg/L TCLP.
V. Final Rule Granting This Petition
A. What decision is EPA finalizing?
Today the EPA is finalizing an exclusion to conditionally delist an
annual volume of 2,000 cubic yards of wastewater treatment plant
sludges generated at AAI from conversion coating on aluminum.
On March 7, 2002, EPA proposed to exclude or delist this wastewater
treatment sludge from the list of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31 and
accepted public comment on the proposed rule (67 FR 10341). EPA
considered all comments received, and we believe that this waste should
be excluded from hazardous waste control.
After EPA proposed the exclusion for AAI in 2002, the Agency
promulgated the Methods Innovation Rule (MIR)(70 FR 34538, June 14,
2005). The MIR reformed RCRA-related testing and monitoring by
restricting requirements to use the methods found in ``Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,'' also known as
``SW-846,'' to those situations where the method is the only one
capable of measuring the property (i.e., it is used to measure a
method-defined parameter). In addition, the MIR revised several
conditional delistings to specifically mention method-defined
parameters incorporated by reference at Sec. 260.11 consistent with
the Office of Federal Register's revised format for incorporation by
reference. Therefore, EPA is including a specific reference to SW-846
Methods 1311, 1330A, and 9071B (method-defined parameters) for the
generation of the leachate extract in the quarterly verification
testing requirement for the AAI delisting. SW-846 Method 1311 must be
used for generation of the leachate extract used in the testing of the
delisting levels if oil and grease comprise less than 1% of the waste.
SW-846 Method 1330A must be used for generation of the leaching extract
if oil and grease comprise 1% or more of the waste. SW-846 Method 9071B
must be used for determination of oil and grease. SW-846 Methods 1311,
1330A, and 9071B are incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11.
B. What are the terms of this exclusion?
AAI must dispose of the waste in a lined Subtitle D landfill which
is permitted, licensed, or registered by a state to manage industrial
solid waste. AAI must obtain and analyze on a quarterly basis a
representative sample of the waste. AAI must verify that the
concentrations of the constituents of concern do not exceed the
allowable levels set forth in this exclusion. The list of constituents
for verification is a subset of those initially tested for and is based
on the occurrence of constituents at the majority of facilities
participating in the expedited process to delist F019 and the
concentrations detected relative to the allowable levels.
This exclusion applies only to a maximum annual volume of 2,000
cubic yards and is effective only if all conditions contained in this
rule are satisfied.
C. When is the delisting effective?
This rule is effective April 6, 2007. 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. This rule
reduces rather than increases the existing requirements and, therefore,
is effective immediately upon publication under the Administrative
Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
D. How does this action affect the states?
Today's exclusion is being issued under the federal RCRA delisting
program. Therefore, only states subject to federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This exclusion is not effective in states
that have received authorization to make their own delisting decisions.
Also, the exclusion may not be effective in states having a dual system
that includes federal RCRA requirements and their own requirements. EPA
allows states to impose their own 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
[[Page 17031]]
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 petitioners to contact the state regulatory
authority to establish the status of their wastes under the state law.
If a participating 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 it can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in the state.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability
and therefore is not a regulatory action subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 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.) because it applies to a
particular facility only. Because this rule is 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, 204, and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because
this rule will affect only a particular facility, it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as specified in
section 203 of UMRA.
Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this
final rule does not have federalism implications. It 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, ``Federalism,'' (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule. Similarly, because this rule will affect only a particular
facility, this final rule does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045,``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as
defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have
reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by
this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for
this belief is that the Agency used the DRAS program, which considers
health and safety risks to infants and children, to calculate the
maximum allowable concentrations for this rule.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
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 note) do not apply.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report which includes a copy of the rule to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of
rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801
because this is a rule of particular applicability.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: March 19, 2007.
Margaret M. Guerriero,
Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended as
follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
0
2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of part 261 the following wastestream is
added in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 1.--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility/address Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
AutoAlliance International Wastewater treatment sludges, F019, that
Inc., Flat Rock, Michigan. are generated by AutoAlliance
International, Inc. (AAI) at Flat Rock,
Michigan at a maximum annual rate of
2,000 cubic yards per year. The sludges
must be disposed of in a lined landfill
with leachate collection which is
licensed, permitted, or otherwise
authorized to accept the delisted
wastewater treatment sludges in
accordance with 40 CFR part 258. The
exclusion becomes effective as of April
6, 2007.
1. Delisting Levels: (A) The
concentrations in a leachate extract of
the waste measured in any sample must
not exceed the following levels (mg/L):
arsenic--0.3; cadmium--0.5; chromium--
4.95; lead--5; nickel--90.5; selenium--
1; tin--721; zinc--898; p-cresol--11.4;
and formaldehyde--84.2. (B) The total
concentration measured in any sample
must not exceed the following levels (mg/
kg): mercury--8.92; and formaldehyde--
689.
[[Page 17032]]
2. Quarterly Verification Testing: To
verify that the waste does not exceed
the specified delisting levels, AAI must
collect and analyze one representative
sample of the waste on a quarterly
basis. Sample collection and analyses,
including quality control procedures,
must be performed using appropriate
methods. SW-846 Method 1311 must be used
for generation of the leachate extract
used in the testing of the delisting
levels if oil and grease comprise less
than 1% of the waste. SW-846 Method
1330A must be used for generation of the
leaching extract if oil and grease
comprise 1% or more of the waste. SW-846
Method 9071B must be used for
determination of oil and grease. SW-846
Methods 1311, 1330A, and 9071B are
incorporated by reference in 40 CFR
260.11.
3. Changes in Operating Conditions: AAI
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 change
significantly. AAI 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.
4. Data Submittals: AAI must submit the
data obtained through verification
testing or as required by other
conditions of this rule to both U.S. EPA
Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,
IL 60604 and MDEQ, Waste and Hazardous
Materials Division, Hazardous Waste
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. AAI
must compile, summarize and maintain on
site for a minimum of five years records
of operating conditions and analytical
data. AAI must make these records
available for inspection. A signed copy
of the certification statement in 40 CFR
260.22(i)(12) must accompany all data.
5. Reopener Language: (a) If, anytime
after disposal of the delisted waste AAI
possesses or is otherwise made aware of
any data (including but not limited to
leachate data or groundwater monitoring
data) relevant to the delisted waste
indicating that any constituent is at a
level in the leachate higher than the
specified delisting level, or is in the
groundwater at a concentration higher
than the maximum allowable groundwater
concentration in paragraph (e), then AAI
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.
(c) If the Regional Administrator
determines that the reported information
does require Agency action, the Regional
Administrator will inform AAI 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 AAI with an
opportunity to present information as to
why the proposed Agency action is not
necessary or to suggest an alternative
action. AAI shall have 30 days from the
date of the Regional Administrator's
notice to present the information.
(d) If after 30 days AAI 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.
(e) Maximum Allowable Groundwater
Concentrations ([mu]g/L): arsenic--5;
cadmium--5; chromium--100; lead--15;
nickel--750; selenium--50; tin--22,500;
zinc--11,300; p-cresol--188; and
formaldehyde--1,380.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 07-1650 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P