[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 13, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55443-55452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26662]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-6455-2]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Proposed Exclusion for
Identifying and Listing Hazardous Waste
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.(EPA)
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ``the Agency'' or ``we'' in this preamble) is
proposing to grant a petition submitted by General Motors Corporation,
Lansing Car Assembly--Body Plant (GM) in Lansing, Michigan, to exclude
(or ``delist'') certain solid wastes generated by its wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in
Subpart D of Part 261.
GM submitted the petition under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22(a).
Section 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to
modify or revoke any provision of Secs. 260 through 266, 268 and 273.
Section 260.22 (a) specifically provides generators the opportunity to
petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator
specific'' basis from the hazardous waste lists.
The Agency has tentatively decided to grant the petition based on
an evaluation of waste-specific information provided by GM. This
proposed decision, if finalized, conditionally excludes the petitioned
waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
We conclude that GM's petitioned waste is nonhazardous with respect
to the original listing criteria.
DATES: We will accept public comments on this proposed decision until
November 29, 1999. 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.
Your request for a hearing must reach EPA by October 28, 1999. The
request must contain the information prescribed in Sec. 260.20(d).
ADDRESSES: Please send two copies of your comments to Peter
Ramanauskas, Waste Management Branch (DW-8J), Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL, 60604.
Any person may request a hearing on this proposed decision by
filing a request with Robert Springer, Director, Waste, Pesticides and
Toxics Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson Blvd.,
Chicago, IL, 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Contact: For technical information concerning
this notice, contact Peter Ramanauskas at the address above or at 312-
886-7890. The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule is located
at the U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, and
is available for viewing from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding federal holidays. Call Peter Ramanauskas at (312)
886-7890 for appointments. The public may copy material from the
regulatory docket at $0.15 per page.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA proposing?
B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this delisting?
C. How will GM manage the waste if it is delisted?
D. When would EPA finalize the proposed delisting exclusion?
E. How would this action affect States?
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?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What waste did GM petition EPA to delist?
B. What information and analyses did GM submit to support this
petition?
C. How does GM generate the petitioned waste?
D. How did GM sample and analyze the data in this petition?
E. What were the results of GM's analysis?
F. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
G. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
H. What did EPA conclude about GM's analysis?
I. What is EPA's final evaluation of this delisting petition?
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. What are the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the waste?
B. How frequently must GM test the waste?
C. What must GM do if the process changes?
D. What data must GM submit?
E. What happens if GM's waste fails to meet the conditions of
the exclusion?
V. Regulatory Impact
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
IX. Executive Order 12875
X. Executive Order 13045
XI. Executive Order 13084
XII. National Technology Transfer And Advancement Act
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
The EPA is proposing to grant GM's petition to have its wastewater
treatment sludge excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a
hazardous waste. We used a fate and transport model to predict the
concentration of hazardous constituents released from the petitioned
waste once it is disposed to evaluate the potential impact of the
petitioned waste on human health and the environment.
B. Why is EPA Proposing to Approve This Delisting?
GM petitioned EPA to exclude, or delist, the wastewater treatment
sludge because GM believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the
RCRA criteria for which EPA listed it. GM also believes there are no
additional constituents or factors which could cause the wastes to be
hazardous.
Based on our review described below, we agree with the petitioner
that the waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original listing
criteria. If our review had found that the waste remained hazardous
based on the factors for which we originally listed the waste, we would
have proposed to deny the petition.
In reviewing this petition, we considered the original listing
criteria and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See Sec. 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 Secs. 261.11(a)(2)
and (3).
We also evaluated the waste for other factors or criteria which
could cause the waste to be hazardous. These factors included: (1)
Whether the waste is considered acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity
[[Page 55444]]
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.
We believe that the petitioned waste does not meet the criteria for
which the waste was listed, and therefore, should be delisted. Our
tentative decision to delist waste from GM's Lansing facility is based
on the description of the process which generates the waste and the
analytical data submitted to support today's proposed rule.
C. How Will GM Manage the Waste If It Is Delisted?
If the petitioned waste is delisted, GM must dispose of it in a
Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a
state to manage industrial waste.
D. When Would EPA Finalize the Proposed Delisting Exclusion?
HSWA specifically requires the 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 addressed all timely public comments (including those at public
hearings, if any) on today's proposal.
This rule, if finalized, will become effective upon demonstration
that the waste is in full compliance with land disposal restrictions.
Since this rule would reduce the existing requirements for persons
generating hazardous wastes, 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.
E. How Would This Action Affect the States?
Because EPA is issuing today's exclusion under the federal RCRA
delisting program, only states subject to federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This exclusion 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 petitioners
to contact the state regulatory authority to establish the status of
their wastes 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 GM transports the petitioned waste to or manages
the waste in any state with delisting authorization, GM must obtain
delisting authorization from that state before it can manage the waste
as nonhazardous in the state.
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 Sec. 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 Secs. 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 meeting the listing description may not be.
For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion
procedure, called delisting, which allows persons 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 facility petitions the Agency because it does not consider the
wastes hazardous under RCRA regulations.
In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that wastes
generated at a particular facility do 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 (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 Sec. 260.22, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f) and the background
documents for the listed wastes.)
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.
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 as hazardous wastes mixtures containing
listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or
disposing of listed hazardous waste. 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 and remain
hazardous wastes until excluded.
The ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules are now final, after
having been vacated, remanded, and reinstated.
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What Wastes Did GM Petition EPA To Delist?
In November 1998, GM petitioned EPA to exclude an annual volume of
1,250 cubic yards of F019 WWTP filter press sludge generated at its
Lansing Car Assembly--Body Plant located in Lansing, Michigan from the
list of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31. The EPA reviews a
petitioner's estimates and, on occasion, has requested a petitioner to
re-evaluate the estimated waste generation rate. EPA accepts GM's
estimate. F019 is defined as ``Wastewater treatment sludges from the
chemical conversion coating of
[[Page 55445]]
aluminum except from zirconium phosphating in aluminum can washing when
such phosphating is an exclusive conversion coating process.'' GM
believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the criteria for which
F019 was listed (i.e., hexavalent chromium and complexed cyanide).
B. What Information and Analyses Did GM Submit To Support This
Petition?
To support its petition, GM submitted (1) descriptions and
schematic diagrams of its manufacturing and wastewater treatment
processes; (2) results of analyses for the characteristics of
ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity; (3) total constituent
analyses and Extraction Procedure for Oily Wastes (OWEP, SW-846 Method
1330A) analyses for the eight toxicity characteristic metals listed in
40 CFR 261.24, plus antimony, beryllium, cobalt, copper, hexavalent
chromium, nickel, tin, thallium, vanadium, and zinc; (4) total
constituent and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), SW-
846 Method 1311 analyses for 56 volatile and 117 semi-volatile organic
compounds and formaldehyde; (5) total constituent and TCLP analyses for
sulfide, cyanide, and fluoride; (6) total constituent and TCLP analyses
for organochlorine pesticides and chlorinated herbicides; and (7)
analysis for oil and grease, and percent solids.
C. How Does GM Generate the Petitioned Waste?
GM's automobile assembly process includes the treatment of
automobile bodies by alkaline cleaning and phosphating in preparation
for a cathodic electrodeposited paint film (i.e., electrocoat). Prior
to phosphate coating, GM cleans, rinses, and conditions the automobile
bodies to promote phosphate crystal refinement. The automobile bodies
then pass through a 5,050 gallon zinc-nickel phosphate spray tank where
the phosphate coating solution is applied. The phosphate coating
provides a micro-crystalline corrosion resistant base required for the
application of electro-deposited paint. Following phosphate coating,
the automobile bodies are rinsed, sprayed with a trivalent chromium
sealer and rinsed again. The wastewater from the rinse spray overflows
to the general wastewater stream. After leaving the phosphate process
line, the automobile bodies enter the electro-deposition process line
where the automobile bodies are rinsed, dipped in a 68,000 gallon tank
where an electro-deposited paint film is applied, rinsed, and then
baked in an oven at 325 degrees Fahrenheit for 20 minutes. The
automobile body then goes to the paint shop process line where primer
paint and basecoats, antichip coats, and clearcoats are applied in
spraybooths.
The WWTP treats the assembly plant's general industrial waste
stream, electro-deposition process line waste stream, and deionized
water system waste stream. The general industrial waste stream is
composed primarily of car washing and plant clean-up and maintenance
water, wastewater generated by the phosphate process line, spraybooth
recirculation system blowdown, welding wastewater, non-contact cooling
water blowdown, boiler blowdown, and boiler condensate. The electro-
deposition waste stream is composed of a deionized water rinse overflow
stream and the deionized water system waste stream is composed of
deionized water system regenerate and deionized water reject.
Treatment at the WWTP is a batch operation. General wastewater from
the assembly plant enters one of two solids separators. Each separator
has a surface skimmer for removing floating and settleable solids. The
wastewater discharges to one of three process wastewater holding tanks
where the general industrial waste stream blends with the electro-
deposition and deionized water waste streams. Sulfuric acid may be
added to the holding tanks as necessary to break metal chelates. A
cationic polymer coagulant is added to the wastewater as it is pumped
from the holding tanks to a blend basin. Caustic is added to the
wastewater within the blend basin to raise wastewater pH to 9.5-9.8.
From the blend basin, wastewater discharges to a flash mix tank where
an anionic polymer is added to floc the suspended solids. Two
clarifiers in parallel separate the liquid and solid phases of the
wastewater. The settled sludge is pumped to either a sludge thickener
or a sludge conditioning tank and the supernatant passes through one of
two rapid sand filters operating in parallel and before discharging to
the Lansing Publicly Owned Treatment Works sewer system. In the sludge
thickener tank, the sludge is thickened with a sludge rake and then
pumped to the sludge conditioning tank. The conditioned sludge is then
pumped to one of two filter presses. Filtrate from the filter presses,
as well as supernatant generated in the sludge thickener, is returned
to the WWTP influent wet well. After dewatering, the filter press cake
falls into 23 cubic yard roll-off boxes beneath the filter presses.
Once a roll-off box is filled, GM disposes of the waste in a land-based
management facility as a hazardous waste.
D. How Did GM Sample and Analyze the Data in This Petition?
GM developed a list of analytical constituents based on a review of
facility processes, Material Safety Data Sheets for raw materials and
chemical additives used in the manufacturing process, and
recommendations contained in EPA delisting guidance. See Petitions to
Delist Hazardous Wastes, A Guidance Manual, dated March 1996.
For GM's petition, GM sampled the WWTP filter press sludge from
four separate roll-off boxes on December 19, 1997 and January 29, 1998.
Each roll-off box contained WWTP filter press sludge generated over a
period of approximately one week and the four boxes were filled on
consecutive weeks. GM collected one composite and one grab sample of
sludge from each roll-off box during each sampling event. Composite
samples consisted of four individual full-depth core grab samples mixed
together to form one sample. GM analyzed composite samples for semi-
volatile organic compounds, organochlorine pesticides, chlorinated
herbicides, and inorganic constituents and analyzed full-depth core
grab samples for volatile organic compounds (VOC). Grab samples were
collected for VOC analysis to eliminate the possibility of VOC loss due
to volatilization which may occur during preparation of composite
samples.
To quantify the total constituent and leachate concentrations, GM
used the following SW-846 Methods: 6020 for antimony, arsenic, barium,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel, selenium,
silver, thallium, tin, vanadium, and zinc; 7471A for total mercury;
7470A for leachate mercury; 7196A for hexavalent chromium; 9013 for
total cyanide; 9012 for amenable cyanide; 9030A for sulfide; 8260A for
volatile organic compounds; 8270B for semi-volatile organic compounds;
8081 for organochlorine pesticides; and 8151 for chlorinated
herbicides. GM used the following SW-846 Methods for characteristic
testing of the samples: 7.3.3.2 for reactive cyanide; 7.3.4.2 for
reactive sulfide; 1010 for ignitability; and 9045C for corrosivity. GM
used method 9071 to determine oil and grease content. Based on results
of 149,000 mg/kg to 193,000 mg/kg, GM used the Extraction Procedure for
Oily Wastes (OWEP, SW-846 Method 1330A) and the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW-846 Method 1311), as described below, to
determine leachate concentrations. GM used EPA
[[Page 55446]]
Methods 9056 & 340.2 to detect fluoride, Association of Official
Analytical Chemists (AOAC) Method 931.08 to detect formaldehyde, and
EPA Method 160.3 to determine percent solids.
E. What Were the Results of GM's Analysis?
Table 1 presents the maximum total and leachate concentrations for
18 metals, total cyanide, total sulfide, reactive sulfide, and
fluoride. Reactive cyanide was not detected in any of the samples.
Table 1.--Maximum Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations \1\
[WWTP Filter Cake]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total constituent TCLP leachate
Inorganic constituents analyses (mg/kg) analyses (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................... 7.4 0.053
Arsenic..................... 7.2 0.048
Barium...................... 727.0 0.239
Beryllium................... 1.1 0.013
Cadmium..................... 1.2 0.009
Chromium (total)............ 1820.0 0.164
Chromium (hexavalent)....... 0.158 0.003
Cobalt...................... 12.8 0.038
Copper...................... 523.0 0.242
Lead........................ 10800.0 0.794
Mercury..................... 0.15 0.0075
Nickel...................... 3240.0 17.823
Selenium.................... 4.6 0.044
Tin......................... 2310.0 35.441
Vanadium.................... 43.9 0.348
Zinc........................ 17400.0 3.941
Cyanide (total)............. 2.34 0.0122
Sulfide (total)............. 1780.0 1.53
Fluoride.................... 403.0 0.898
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent
found in any one sample. These levels do not necessarily represent the
specific levels found in one sample.
GM analyzed the samples of petitioned waste for 173 volatile and
semi-volatile organic compounds. Table 2 presents the maximum total and
leachate concentrations for all detected organic constituents in GM's
waste samples.
Table 2.--Maximum Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations \1\
[WWTP Filter Cake]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total constituent TCLP leachate
Organic constituents analyses (Mg/kg) analyses (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone........................ <11.4 uj="" 0.170="" allyl="" chloride.................="" 0.067="" nd="" beta-bhc.......................=""><0.88 u="" 0.00005="" 2-butanone.....................="" 0.618="" nd="" m,p-cresol.....................=""><587 u="" 0.0223="" chloroform.....................="" 0.013="" nd="" ddt............................=""><1.76 u="" 0.000045="" 1,1-dichloroethane.............=""><0.08 u="" 0.0087="" ethylbenzene...................="" 0.457="" 0.0044="" formaldehyde...................="" 1520.0="" 0.508="" methylene="" chloride.............="" 1.680="" nd="" oil="" &="" grease...................="" 193,000="" na="" phenol.........................=""><587 u="" 0.339="" toluene........................="" 0.19="" 0.0031="" 1,1,1-trichloroethane..........=""><0.08 uj="" 0.0494="" trichloroethene................="" 0.0436="" nd="" xylenes,="" total.................="" 6.58="" 0.0399="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" \1\="" these="" levels="" represent="" the="" highest="" concentration="" of="" each="" constituent="" found="" in="" any="" one="" sample.="" these="" levels="" do="" not="" necessarily="" represent="" the="" specific="" levels="" found="" in="" one="" sample.="" uj,="" u--constituent="" not="" detected="" above="" quantitation="" limit.="" nd--denotes="" that="" the="" constituent="" was="" not="" detected.="" na--not="" applicable.="" [[page="" 55447]]="" epa="" does="" not="" generally="" verify="" submitted="" test="" data="" before="" proposing="" delisting="" decisions.="" the="" sworn="" affidavit="" submitted="" with="" the="" petition="" binds="" the="" petitioner="" to="" present="" truthful="" and="" accurate="" results.="" gm="" submitted="" a="" signed="" certification="" of="" accuracy="" and="" responsibility="" statement="" presented="" in="" 40="" cfr="" 260.22(i)(12).="" f.="" how="" did="" epa="" evaluate="" the="" risk="" of="" delisting="" this="" waste?="" for="" this="" delisting="" determination,="" we="" used="" information="" gathered="" to="" identify="" plausible="" exposure="" routes="" (i.e.,="" ground="" water,="" surface="" water,="" air)="" for="" hazardous="" constituents="" present="" in="" the="" petitioned="" waste.="" we="" determined="" that="" disposal="" in="" a="" subtitle="" d="" landfill="" is="" the="" most="" reasonable,="" worst-case="" disposal="" scenario="" for="" gm's="" petitioned="" waste,="" and="" that="" the="" major="" exposure="" route="" of="" concern="" would="" be="" ingestion="" of="" contaminated="" ground="" water.="" we,="" therefore,="" evaluated="" gm's="" petitioned="" waste="" using="" the="" modified="" epa="" composite="" model="" for="" landfills="" (epacml)="" which="" predicts="" the="" potential="" for="" ground="" water="" contamination="" from="" landfilled="" wastes.="" see="" 56="" fr="" 32993="" (july="" 18,="" 1991),="" 56="" fr="" 67197="" (december="" 30,="" 1991).="" we="" believe="" this="" model="" is="" appropriate="" when="" evaluating="" whether="" a="" waste="" should="" be="" delisted="" from="" rcra="" subtitle="" c="" (parts="" 260="" through="" 266="" and="" 268).="" specifically,="" we="" used="" the="" maximum="" estimated="" waste="" volume="" and="" the="" maximum="" reported="" extract="" concentrations="" as="" inputs="" to="" estimate="" the="" constituent="" concentrations="" in="" the="" ground="" water="" at="" a="" hypothetical="" receptor="" well="" down="" gradient="" from="" the="" disposal="" site.="" the="" calculated="" receptor="" well="" concentration="" was="" then="" compared="" directly="" to="" the="" health-="" based="" level="" at="" an="" assumed="" risk="" of="" 1="" x="">-6 for each
hazardous constituent of concern. For the petitioned waste, none of the
calculated values at the receptor well exceeded the health based level
(HBL) at the target risk level of 1 x 10-6. The HBL was
then used to back calculate the maximum allowable concentration in the
waste extract which would not exceed protective levels at the receptor
well for each constituent of concern.
We used GM's maximum annual waste volume to derive a petition-
specific dilution-attenuation factor (DAF) of 96. In our evaluation, we
used a DAF of 96 times the health based level to determine the maximum
allowable leachate concentration for GM's waste (see Table 3).
Table 3.--EPACML: Maximum Allowable Leachate Concentrations
[WWTP Filter Cake]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCLP leachate analyses Levels of regulatory
Inorganic and Organic Constituents (mg/l) concern \1\(mg/l)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony........................................................ 0.053 0.576
Arsenic......................................................... 0.048 4.8
Barium.......................................................... 0.239 100.0
Beryllium....................................................... 0.013 0.384
Cadmium......................................................... 0.009 0.48
Chromium........................................................ 0.164 5.0
Cobalt.......................................................... 0.038 201.6
Copper.......................................................... 0.242 124.8
Lead............................................................ 0.794 1.44
Mercury......................................................... 0.0075 0.192
Nickel.......................................................... 17.823 67.2
Selenium........................................................ 0.044 1.0
Silver.......................................................... 0.028 5.0
Thallium........................................................ 0.020 0.192
Tin............................................................. 35.441 2016.0
Vanadium........................................................ 0.348 28.8
Zinc............................................................ 3.941 960.0
Cyanide (total)................................................. 0.0122 19.2
Fluoride........................................................ 0.898 384.0
Acetone......................................................... 0.170 336.0
Beta-BHC........................................................ 0.00005 0.00454
m,p-Cresol...................................................... 0.0223 19.2
DDT............................................................. 0.000045 0.024
1,1-Dichloroethane.............................................. 0.0087 0.0864
Ethylbenzene.................................................... 0.0044 67.2
Formaldehyde.................................................... 0.508 672.0
Phenol.......................................................... 0.3390 1920.0
Toluene......................................................... 0.0031 96.0
1,1,1-Trichloroethane........................................... 0.0494 19.2
Xylenes......................................................... 0.0399 960.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Docket Report on Health-Based Levels and Solubilities Used in the Evaluation of Delisting Petitions,''
May 1996, located in the RCRA public docket for today's notice.
Note: See the RCRA public docket for today's notice for the specific reference doses and the calculation of the
health-based levels of regulatory concern.
For inorganic constituents, the maximum reported leachate
concentrations for metals, cyanide, and fluoride in the WWTP filter
press sludge were well below the health-based levels of concern used in
decision-making for delisting. We also evaluated the potential hazards
of the organic constituents detected in the TCLP extract of GM's
samples. The maximum detected leachate concentrations were
significantly below the respective levels of concern. We believe that
it is inappropriate to evaluate non-detectable concentrations of a
constituent of concern in our modeling efforts if the non-detectable
value was obtained using the appropriate analytical method.
[[Page 55448]]
G. What Other Factors Did EPA Consider in Its Evaluation?
We also considered the applicability of ground-water monitoring
data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this case, we
determined that it would be inappropriate to request ground-water
monitoring data because GM currently disposes of the petitioned waste
off-site. For petitioners using off-site management, EPA believes that,
in most cases, the ground water monitoring data would not be
meaningful. Most commercial land disposal facilities accept waste from
numerous generators. Any ground water contamination or leachate would
be characteristic of the total volume of waste disposed of at the site.
In most cases, EPA believes that it would be impossible to isolate
ground water impacts associated with any one waste disposed of in a
commercial landfill. Therefore, we did not request ground water
monitoring data from GM.
During the evaluation of GM's petition, we also considered the
potential impact of the petitioned waste via air emission and storm
water run-off.
We evaluated the exposure to waste particles and volatile emissions
released from the surface of an open landfill. We considered exposure
to hazardous constituents through (1) inhalation of particulates and
absorption into the lungs; (2) ingestion of particulates eliminated
from respiratory passages and subsequently swallowed; (3) inhalation of
gas from the release of volatile compounds; and (4) air deposition of
particulates and subsequent ingestion of the soil/waste mixture.
The estimated levels of the hazardous constituents of concern
released into the air are below health-based levels for ingestion and
inhalation levels of concern, and the EPA Concentration-Based Exemption
Criteria for Soils (57 FR 21450, May 20, 1992), with the singular
exception of formaldehyde. The concentration of formaldehyde in all
waste samples exceeded a 1 x 10-6 cancer risk level for
inhalation with the maximum value estimated at 3.58 x 10-6.
Formaldehyde is present in resins used in the automotive painting
process. The maximum formaldehyde levels in the waste are deemed
acceptable for the following reasons: (1) Formaldehyde is not a
constituent for which this waste was listed; (2) the estimated cancer
risk from the maximum formaldehyde level was still within the
10-4 to 10-6 range; (3) the volatile emissions
model may have been overly conservative by ignoring competing fate and
transport phenomenon; and (4) formaldehyde was the only constituent
exceeding target risk levels. Although the waste as tested is deemed
acceptable, we are imposing a limit on the maximum allowable
concentration of formaldehyde to ensure that risks posed by the waste
do not increase. A delisting limit of 2100 mg/kg total formaldehyde
corresponds with a cancer risk of 5 x 10-6 at the receptor,
based on the modeling in this evaluation. This concentration is well
above the average and maximum values observed in the current samples
evaluated (921 and 1520 mg/kg, respectively).
We believe that exposure to airborne contaminants from GM's
petitioned wastes is unlikely. The results of this worse-case analysis
suggested no substantial hazard to human health from airborne exposure
to constituents in GM's wastewater treatment sludge.
For a description of EPA's assessment of the potential impact of
airborne dispersion from GM's waste, see the RCRA public docket for
today's proposed rule.
We evaluated the potential hazards resulting from exposure to
hazardous constituents released into surface water as a result of land
disposal of the wastewater treatment sludge. We investigated the
potential hazard from exposure of ecological receptors to dissolved
hazardous constituents in a small stream considered large enough to
support a fishery. We also evaluated the potential hazard from human
consumption of aquatic organisms from the stream. A larger stream was
evaluated based on the same criteria and the potential hazards from
ingestion of contaminated drinking water. The larger stream size was
deemed large enough to support a public water supply. We assumed an
amount of uncovered waste would be exposed to soil erosion losses
through run-off. We modeled soil containing waste particles to flow
into a nearby stream followed by complete dissolution of hazardous
constituents into the water column. No resultant concentrations of
hazardous constituents in the surface water exceeded water quality
criteria for ecological or human exposures.
Based on this worst case evaluation, we conclude that GM's
wastewater treatment sludge is not a substantial or potential hazard to
human health and the environment via surface water exposure.
For a description of EPA's assessment of the potential impact of
runoff from GM's waste, see the RCRA public docket for today's proposed
rule.
H. What Did EPA Conclude About GM's Analysis?
After reviewing GM's processes, the EPA concludes that (1) no
hazardous constituents of concern are likely to be present in GM's
waste; and (2) the petitioned waste does not exhibit any of the
characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. See 40 CFR
261.21, 261.22, and 261.23, respectively.
I. What Is EPA's Final Evaluation of This Delisting Petition?
The descriptions of the GM hazardous waste process and analytical
characterization, with the proposed verification testing requirements
(as discussed later in this notice), provide a reasonable basis for EPA
to grant the exclusion.
We have reviewed the sampling procedures used by GM and have
determined they satisfy EPA criteria for collecting representative
samples of constituent concentrations in the wastewater treatment
sludge.
We believe the data submitted in support of the petition show that
GM's waste will not pose a threat when disposed of in a Subtitle D
landfill. We therefore, propose to grant GM an exclusion for its WWTP
sludge.
If we finalize the proposed rule, the Agency will no longer
regulate the petitioned waste under 40 CFR Parts 262 through 268 and
the permitting standards of Part 270.
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. What Are the Maximum Allowable Concentrations of Hazardous
Constituents in the Waste?
Concentrations measured in the TCLP (or OWEP, where appropriate)
extract of the waste of the following constituents must not exceed the
following levels (mg/l): Antimony--0.576; Arsenic--4.8; Barium--100;
Beryllium--0.384; Cadmium--0.48; Chromium--5; Cobalt--201.6; Copper--
124.8; Lead--1.44; Mercury--0.192; Nickel--67.2; Selenium--1; Silver--
5; Thallium--0.192; Tin--2016; Vanadium--28.8; Zinc--960; Cyanide--
19.2; Fluoride--384; Acetone--336; m,p,-Cresol--19.2; 1,1-
Dichloroethane--0.0864; Ethylbenzene--67.2; Formaldehyde--672; Phenol--
1920; Toluene--96; 1,1,1-Trichloroethane--19.2; Xylene--960; Beta-BHC--
0.00454; DDT--0.024.
GM may not dispose of the excluded waste in a Subtitle D landfill
until it has demonstrated compliance with land disposal restrictions of
11.0 mg/l for nickel and 0.75 mg/l for lead as measured in a TCLP
extract.
[[Page 55449]]
The total concentration of formaldehyde in the waste must not
exceed 2100 mg/kg.
Analysis for determining reactivity must be added to the required
verification testing when an EPA-approved method becomes available.
B. How Frequently Must GM Test the Waste?
GM must demonstrate on an annual basis that the constituents of
concern in the petitioned waste do not exceed the levels of concern in
Section IV.A above. In addition, GM must demonstrate compliance with
land disposal restrictions for Nickel and Lead on a monthly basis. GM
must analyze four representative samples of the WWTP filter press
sludge using methods with appropriate detection levels and quality
control procedures.
C. What Must GM Do If the Process Changes?
If GM significantly changes the manufacturing or treatment process
or the chemicals used in the manufacturing or treatment process, GM may
not handle the WWTP filter press sludge generated from the new process
under this exclusion until it has demonstrated to the EPA that the
waste meets the levels set in Section IV.A and that no new hazardous
constituents listed in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR Part 261 have been
introduced. GM must manage wastes generated after the process change as
hazardous waste until GM has received written approval from EPA.
D. What Data Must GM Submit?
GM must submit the data obtained through annual verification
testing to U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604,
within 60 days of sampling. GM must compile, summarize, and maintain on
site for a minimum of five years records of operating conditions and
analytical data. GM 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).
E. What Happens If GM Fails To Meet the Conditions of the Exclusion?
If GM violates the terms and conditions established in the
exclusion, the Agency may start procedures to withdraw the exclusion.
If the annual testing of the waste does not meet the delisting
levels described in Section IV.A above, GM must notify the Agency
according to Section IV.D. The exclusion will be suspended and the
waste managed as hazardous until GM has received written approval for
the exclusion from the Agency. GM may provide sampling results which
support the continuation of the delisting exclusion.
The EPA has the authority under RCRA and the Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 551 (1978) et seq. (APA), to reopen a
delisting decision if we receive new information indicating that the
conditions of this exclusion have been violated.
V. 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.
VI. 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 one
facility. 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.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and record-keeping requirements associated
with this proposed rule have been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980 (Public Law 96-511, 44 USC 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned
OMB Control Number 2050-0053.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995,
EPA generally must prepare a written statement for rules with federal
mandates that may result in estimated costs to state, local, and tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year.
When such a statement is required for EPA rules, under section 205
of the UMRA EPA must identify and consider alternatives, including the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. EPA must select that alternative,
unless the Administrator explains in the final rule why it was not
selected or it is inconsistent with law.
Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, 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. 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.
IX. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a
[[Page 55450]]
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 Office of Management and Budget 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.
X. 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.
XI. 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
that 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 Office
Management and Budget, 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.
XII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under Section 12(d) if 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 that 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: September 21, 1999.
Robert Springer,
Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR Part 261 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for Part 261 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of Part 261 it is proposed to add the
following waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as
follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 1--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
General Motors Corporation........... Lansing, Michigan...... Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludge from
the chemical conversion coating (phosphate
coating) of aluminum (EPA Hazardous Waste No.
F019) generated at a maximum annual rate of
1,250 cubic yards per year and disposed of in a
Subtitle D landfill, after (insert publication
date of the final rule).
[[Page 55451]]
1. Delisting Levels: (A) The constituent
concentrations measured in the TCLP extract may
not exceed the following levels (mg/L):
Antimony--0.576; Arsenic--4.8; Barium--100;
Beryllium--0.384; Cadmium--0.48; Chromium
(total)-5; Cobalt--201.6; Copper--124.8; Lead--
1.44; Mercury--0.192; Nickel--67.2; Selenium--
1; Silver--5; Thallium--0.192; Tin--2016;
Vanadium--28.8; Zinc--960; Cyanide--19.2;
Fluoride--384; Acetone--336; m,p-Cresol--19.2;
1,1--Dichloroethane--0.0864; Ethylbenzene--
67.2; Formaldehyde--672; Phenol--1920; Toluene--
96; 1,1,1--Trichloroethane--19.2; Xylene--960;
Beta-BHC--0.00454; DDT--0.024.
(B) The total concentration of formaldehyde in
the waste may not exceed 2100 mg/kg.
(C) Analysis for determining reactivity must be
added to verification testing when an EPA-
approved method becomes available.
2. Verification Testing: GM must implement an
annual testing program to demonstrate that the
constituent concentrations measured in the TCLP
extract (or OWEP, where appropriate) of the
waste do not exceed the delisting levels
established in Condition (1). GM must also
demonstrate compliance with LDR treatment
standards for Nickel and Lead on a monthly
basis.
3. Changes in Operating Conditions: If GM
significantly changes the manufacturing or
treatment process or the chemicals used in the
manufacturing or treatment process, GM must
notify the EPA of the changes in writing. GM
must handle wastes generated after the process
change as hazardous until GM has demonstrated
that the wastes meet the delisting levels set
forth in Condition 1 and that no new hazardous
constituents listed in Appendix VIII of Part
261 have been introduced and GM has received
written approval from EPA.
4. Data Submittals: GM must submit the data
obtained through annual verification testing or
as required by other conditions of this rule to
U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd. (DW-8J),
Chicago, IL 60604, within 60 days of sampling.
GM must compile, summarize, and maintain on
site for a minimum of five years records of
operating conditions and analytical data. GM
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).
5. Reopener Language--(a) If, anytime after
disposal of the delisted waste, GM possesses or
is otherwise made aware of any environmental
data (including but not limited to leachate
data or groundwater monitoring data) or any
other data relevant to the delisted waste
indicating that any constituent identified in
Condition (1) is at a level in the leachate
higher than the delisting level established in
Condition (1), or is at a level in the ground
water or soil higher than the level predicted
by the CML model, then GM 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
notify GM 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 GM
with an opportunity to present information as
to why the proposed Agency action is not
necessary or to suggest an alternative action.
GM shall have 10 days from the date of the
Regional Administrator's notice to present the
information.
(d) If after 10 days GM 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.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 55452]]
[FR Doc. 99-26662 Filed 10-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
