[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 214 (Friday, November 6, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57418-57424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-26837]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R05-RCRA-2009-0747; SW-FRL-8972-9]
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 at the
Sterling Heights Assembly Plant (SHAP), Sterling Heights, Michigan from
the list of hazardous wastes. SHAP is owned by Old Carco LLC (formerly
Chrysler LLC, formerly DaimlerChrysler) and operated by Chrysler Group
LLC.
This 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 November 6, 2009.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-RCRA-2009-0747. 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-
2009-0747 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 am to 4:00 pm, 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, Land and Chemicals
Division, (Mail Code: LR-8J), 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 SHAP 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.
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
[[Page 57419]]
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 SHAP petition to delist?
SHAP 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, wastewater from
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, 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 concentrations were also proposed for smaller
quantities of 1,000 and 2,000 cubic yards per year.
III. EPA's Evaluation of This Petition
A. What information was submitted in support of this petition?
SHAP submitted certification that its process was consistent with
the process described in the MOU between Region 5 and MDEQ. See 67 FR
10341, March 7, 2002. One additional non-chromium sealer was identified
by SHAP. Based on the provided Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), the
additional sealer does not appear to add new hazardous constituents to
the process. 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, SHAP collected six samples
representing waste generated over six discreet one-week periods
beginning March 7 and ending April 17, 2007. SHAP stored six 55-gallon
drums of the sludge representative of each week the waste was generated
and collected composite and grab samples from each of the drums on
April 18, 2007. 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, 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, SHAP analyzed for total sulfide
and total cyanide which supported the narrative determination of non-
reactivity required in 40 CFR 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 concentrations 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum observed concentration Maximum allowable
-------------------------------- concentration
Constituent detected -------------------------------- GW ([mu]g/L)
Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L) Total (mg/kg) TCLP\*\ (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone......................... 2.7 J 0.38 J NA 171 3,750
[[Page 57420]]
Acetonitrile.................... <2.5 0.0012 J NA 29.3 643
Benzene......................... 0.14 J 0.0095 NA \1\ 0.057 2.5
Butanol......................... <25 0.15 J NA 171 3,758
Chloroform...................... <0.5 0.002 J 5,080 0.0583 1.35
Ethylbenzene.................... 0.3 J 0.0093 NA 31.9 700
Formaldehyde.................... 37 1.8 535 63 1,380
methyl ethyl ketone............. <2.5 0.021 J NA 200 22,545
methyl isobutyl ketone.......... <2.5 0.023 J NA 137 3,000
methylene chloride.............. 0.56 J 0.0056 NA 0.216 5
Styrene......................... <0.5 0.0074 NA 4.56 100
Toluene......................... 2.0 0.12 NA 45.6 1,000
Xylene.......................... 3.0 0.059 NA 456 10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate...... 8.5 J 0.00072 J NA 0.0671 1.47
butyl benzyl phthalate.......... <7.5 0.00023 J NA 69.6 1,448
2,4-dinitrotoluene.............. <1.5 0.00002 NA 0.0049 0.107
di-n-octyl phthalate............ 3.3 J <0.002 NA 0.0839 1.296
Hexachlorobenzene............... <0.013 0.00002 1.12 0.0000724 0.00168
Hexachlorobutadiene............. <1.5 0.00002 212 0.0072 0.167
Naphthalene..................... 0.36 J 0.0041 NA \2\ 0.00822 245
2-methylphenol.................. <1.5 0.002 NA 85.5 1,870
4-methylphenol.................. <1.5 0.12 J NA 8.55 187
Pentachlorophenol............... <1.5 0.002 1,960 \3\ 0.00607 0.071
Pyridine........................ <3.0 0.00098 J NA 1.71 37.575
2,4,5-trichlorophenol........... 0.21 J <0.001 NA 68.6 1,503
2,4,6-trichlorophenol........... 0.68 J <0.001 NA 0.207 4.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony........................ <20 0.0028 J NA 0.494 6
Arsenic......................... <50 0.0051 J 7,740 0.00224 4.87
Barium.......................... 77 0.11 J NA 100 2,000
Beryllium....................... 0.074 J 0.0006 J NA 0.998 40
Cadmium......................... 1.6 0.0074 J NA 0.36 5
Chromium........................ 76 0.024 J NA 3.71 100
Cobalt.......................... 3.5 0.0068 J NA 54 2,248
Lead............................ 5.1 <0.16 NA 5.0 15
Mercury......................... 0.0091 <0.0009 J 6.34 0.2 2
Nickel.......................... 840 8.5 NA 67.8 750
Selenium........................ <20 0.0028 J NA 1.0 50
Silver.......................... 2.5 <0.06 NA 5.0 187
Thallium........................ <20 0.0003 J \4\ 247 0.211 2
Tin............................. 250 J 6.1 NA 540 22,476
Vanadium........................ 1.8 J <0.05 NA 50.6 263
Zinc............................ 5,500 5.6 NA 673 11,220
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Or OWEP as applicable.
< Not detected at the specified concentration.
NA Not applicable.
J Estimated.
\1\ Proposed maximum concentration (0.109 mg/L) adjusted for updated toxicity data.
\2\ Proposed maximum concentration (11.2 mg/L) adjusted for inhalation carcinogenicity.
\3\ Proposed maximum concentration (0.00307 mg/L) adjusted due to exposure time correction.
\4\ Maximum total (247 mg/kg) replacing proposed ``NA'' due to bioaccumulation factor entry.
B. How did EPA evaluate the information submitted?
EPA compared the analytical results submitted by SHAP to the
maximum allowable concentrations set forth in the proposed rule (67 FR
10341, March 7, 2002) or as updated below. The maximum allowable
concentrations for constituents detected in the waste or a TCLP extract
of the waste are summarized in the table above, along with the highest
observed concentration. The table also includes the maximum allowable
concentrations in groundwater at a potential receptor well (in
micrograms per liter--[mu]g/L), as evaluated by the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software (DRAS). These concentrations 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.
Some of the maximum allowable concentrations have been updated to
reflect new toxicity data or in response
[[Page 57421]]
to a technical correction in the modeling. Specifically, the maximum
allowable leachate concentration for benzene was adjusted from 0.109
mg/L to 0.057 mg/L because the cancer slope factor for oral exposure
was increased from 0.029 kg[middot]day/mg to 0.055 kg[middot]day/mg.
The maximum allowable leachate concentration for naphthalene was
adjusted from 11.2 mg/L to 0.00822 mg/L due to adding an inhalation
calculation for carcinogenicity. The maximum allowable leachate
concentration for pentachlorophenol was adjusted from 0.00307 mg/L to
0.00607 to reflect a correction to exposure time in the dermal pathway
for children. A maximum allowable total concentration of 247 mg/kg for
thallium was added after the database was adjusted to include
bioaccumulation and ingestion of thallium in fish.
EPA also used DRAS 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 1x10-5 and the target hazard
index is one. The wastewater treatment plant sludge at SHAP met both of
these criteria based on maximum observed values using DRAS version 2,
the version in use when the SHAP waste samples were collected. A new
version of DRAS (version 3) has been released with current toxicity
data and extensive modeling updates. Although EPA did not base the
evaluation of SHAP waste on the new DRAS methodology, a screening of
the maximum observed concentrations with the new DRAS version showed
that the aggregate hazard index and cancer risks remain below target
levels.
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?
The EPA received public comments on the proposed rule 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 June 4, 2008 (73 FR 31756), the Agency amended 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 design criteria. The amendment has yet to be adopted
by the State of Michigan. The SHAP facility will likely be able to
comply with either the amended listing or the requirements of this
delisting.
(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 does not 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. The Agency has no documented information to
indicate a market exists for recovering the metals in F019 waste from
motor vehicle manufacturers. See 73 FR 31756, 31762 (June 4, 2008). The
Agency notes that the exclusion is conditioned upon certain disposal,
sampling, and volume requirements. While the conditional exclusion
being promulgated today does not eliminate the possibility of
legitimate reuse of the sludge, the final rule does not address such
use.
(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 concentrations 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 concentration 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 final rule 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.
[[Page 57422]]
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 3,000 cubic yards of wastewater treatment plant
sludges generated at SHAP 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 SHAP 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 SHAP 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?
SHAP 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. SHAP must obtain and analyze on a quarterly basis a
representative sample of the waste. SHAP must verify that the
concentrations of the constituents of concern do not exceed the
allowable concentrations set forth in this exclusion. The list of
constituents for verification is a subset of those initially tested for
and is based on the concentrations detected relative to the allowable
concentrations. Two of the constituents selected for verification
required extraordinary analytical methods in order to achieve detection
limits at or below the delisting concentrations. Hexachlorobenzene and
pentachlorophenol are not expected to be significant components of the
petitioned waste, and standard analysis for verification will suffice.
This exclusion applies only to a maximum annual volume of 3,000
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 November 6, 2009. 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
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 DRAS, which considers health and safety
risks to 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
[[Page 57423]]
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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order
12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'', (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in
issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
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: October 5, 2009.
Margaret M. Guerriero,
Director, Land and Chemicals 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 by facility 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Chrysler Group LLC at the Old Sterling Heights, Michigan..... Wastewater treatment sludges, F019, that are
Carco LLC Sterling Heights generated at Old Carco LLC's Sterling Heights
Assembly Plant. Assembly Plant, (SHAP), Sterling Heights,
Michigan by Chrysler Group LLC at a maximum
annual rate of 3,000 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
November 6, 2009.
1. Delisting Levels: The concentrations in a
leachate extract of the waste measured in any
sample must not exceed the following levels
(mg/L): arsenic--0.22; nickel--67.8; benzene--
0.057; hexachlorobenzene--0.0000724;
naphthalene--0.00822; and pentachlorophenol--
0.00607.
2. Quarterly Verification Testing: To verify
that the waste does not exceed the specified
delisting levels, Chrysler Group LLC or Old
Carco LLC 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: Chrysler
Group LLC or Old Carco LLC 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. Chrysler Group LLC or
Old Carco LLC 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: Chrysler Group LLC or Old
Carco LLC 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.
Chrysler Group LLC or Old Carco LLC must
compile, summarize and maintain on site for a
minimum of five years records of operating
conditions and analytical data. Chrysler
Group LLC or Old Carco LLC 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 Chrysler Group
LLC or Old Carco LLC 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 Chrysler
Group LLC or Old Carco LLC must report such
data, in writing, to the Regional
Administrator within 10 days of first
possessing or being made aware of that data.
[[Page 57424]]
(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 Chrysler Group LLC or Old Carco
LLC 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
Chrysler Group LLC or Old Carco LLC with an
opportunity to present information as to why
the proposed Agency action is not necessary
or to suggest an alternative action. Chrysler
Group LLC or Old Carco LLC shall have 30 days
from the date of the Regional Administrator's
notice to present the information.
(d) If after 30 days Chrysler Group LLC or Old
Carco LLC 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--4.87;
nickel--750; benzene--2.5; hexachlorobenzene--
0.00168; naphthalene--245; and
pentachlorophenol--0.071.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-26837 Filed 11-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P