[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 75 (Friday, April 18, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19087-19095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10110]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-5813-2]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
grant a petition submitted by General Motors Corporation, Orion
Assembly Center (GM) in Lake Orion, Michigan, to exclude (or
``delist'') certain solid wastes generated by its wastewater treatment
plant from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in subpart D of part
261. This action responds to a ``delisting'' petition submitted under
Sec. 260.20, which allows any person to petition the Administrator to
modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through 266, 268 and 273,
and under Sec. 260.22, which specifically provides generators the
opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a
``generator-specific'' basis from the hazardous waste lists. This
proposed decision is based on an evaluation of waste-specific
information provided by the petitioner. If this proposed decision is
finalized, the petitioned waste will be conditionally excluded from the
requirements of the hazardous waste regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
DATES: EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision.
Comments must be received in writing
[[Page 19088]]
by June 2, 1997. Comments postmarked after the close of the comment
period will be stamped ``late.''
Any person may request a hearing on this proposed decision by
filing a request with Norman R. Niedergang, Director, Waste, Pesticides
and Toxics Division, at the address listed under ADDRESSES, by May 19,
1997. The request must contain the information prescribed in
Sec. 260.20(d).
ADDRESSES: Two copies of any comments should be sent to Steven Pak,
Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division, Waste Management Branch (DRP-
8J), U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.
Requests for a hearing should be addressed to Norman R. Niedergang,
Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division (D-8J), U.S. EPA Region
5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.
The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule which contains
the complete petition and supporting documents is located at the U.S.
EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, and is available
for viewing from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. Call Steven Pak at (312) 886-4446 for
appointments. The public may copy material from the regulatory docket
at $0.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning
this notice, contact Steven Pak at the address listed under ADDRESSES
or at (312) 886-4446.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Authority
On January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim final
regulations implementing Section 3001 of RCRA, EPA published an amended
list of hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific sources. This
list has been amended several times, and is published in Secs. 261.31
and 261.32. These wastes are listed as hazardous because they typically
and frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous
wastes identified in Subpart C of Part 261 (i.e., ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or meet the criteria for listing
contained in Sec. 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3).
Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste
that is described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a
specific waste from an individual facility meeting the listing
description may not be. For this reason, Secs. 260.20 and 260.22
provide an exclusion procedure, allowing persons to demonstrate that a
specific waste from a particular generating facility should not be
regulated as a hazardous waste.
To have their wastes excluded, petitioners must show that wastes
generated at their facilities do not meet any of the criteria for which
the wastes were listed. See Sec. 260.22(a)(1) and the background
documents for the listed wastes. In addition, the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 require EPA to consider any factors
(including additional constituents) other than those for which the
waste was listed, if there is a reasonable basis to believe that such
additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. See
Sec. 260.22(a)(2). Accordingly, a petitioner also must demonstrate that
the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics
(i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity), and must
present sufficient information for EPA to determine whether the waste
contains any other constituents at hazardous levels. Although wastes
which are ``delisted'' (i.e., excluded) have been evaluated to
determine whether or not they exhibit any of the characteristics of
hazardous waste, generators remain obligated under RCRA to determine
whether or not their waste remains non-hazardous based on the hazardous
waste characteristics.
In addition, residues from the treatment, storage, or disposal of
listed hazardous wastes and mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes
are also considered hazardous wastes. See Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and
(c)(2)(i), referred to as the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively. Such wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain
hazardous wastes until excluded. On December 6, 1991, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the ``mixture/derived
from'' rules and remanded them to EPA on procedural grounds. Shell Oil
Co. v. EPA, 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1991). On March 3, 1992, EPA
reinstated the mixture and derived-from rules, and solicited comments
on other ways to regulate waste mixtures and residues (57 FR 7628). EPA
plans to address issues related to waste mixtures and residues in a
future rulemaking.
B. Approach Used to Evaluate This Petition
GM's petition requests a delisting for a listed hazardous waste. In
making the initial delisting determination, EPA evaluated the
petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in
Sec. 261.11(a). Based on this review, EPA tentatively agreed with the
petitioner, pending public comment, that the waste is non-hazardous
with respect to the original listing criteria. If EPA had found, based
on this review, that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors
for which the waste was originally listed, EPA would have proposed to
deny the petition.
EPA then evaluated the waste with respect to other factors or
criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that
other factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA considered
whether the waste is acutely toxic, and considered the concentration of
the constituents in the waste, the toxicity of the constituents, their
tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in the
environment once released from the waste, plausible and specific types
of management of the petitioned waste, the quantities of waste
generated, and waste variability.
For this delisting determination, EPA used such information
gathered to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground water,
surface water, air) for hazardous constituents present in the
petitioned waste. EPA 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. Therefore, EPA used a fate and
transport model to predict the maximum concentrations of hazardous
constituents that may be released from the petitioned waste after
disposal and to determine the potential impact of the disposal of GM's
petitioned waste on human health and the environment. Specifically, EPA
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
concentrations (referred to as compliance-point concentrations) were
then compared directly to the health-based levels at an assumed risk of
10 -6 used in delisting decision-making for the hazardous
constituents of concern.
EPA believes that this fate and transport model represents a
reasonable worst-case scenario for disposal of the petitioned waste in
a landfill, and that a reasonable worst-case scenario is appropriate
when evaluating whether a waste should be relieved of the protective
management constraints of RCRA Subtitle C (parts 260 through 266 and
268). The use of a reasonable worst-case scenario results in
conservative
[[Page 19089]]
values for the compliance-point concentrations and ensures that the
waste, once removed from hazardous waste regulation, should not pose a
threat to human health or the environment.
EPA also considers the applicability of on-site ground-water
monitoring data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this
case, EPA 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, the EPA did not request ground water
monitoring data from GM.
From the evaluation of GM's delisting petition, a list of
constituents was developed for annual verification testing. Proposed
maximum allowable leachable concentrations for these constituents were
derived by back-calculating from the delisting health-based levels
through the proposed fate and transport model. These concentrations
(i.e., ``delisting levels'') are part of the verification testing
conditions of this proposed exclusion.
Finally, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
specifically require EPA to provide notice and an opportunity for
comment before granting or denying a final exclusion. Thus, a final
decision will not be made until all timely public comments (including
those at public hearings, if any) on today's proposal are addressed.
II. Disposition of Delisting Petition
General Motors Corporation, Orion Assembly Center, 4555 Giddings
Road, Lake Orion, Michigan 48361-1001.
A. Petition for Exclusion
General Motors Corporation, Orion Assembly Center (GM), located in
Lake Orion, Michigan, assembles automobiles from parts and materials
supplied by outside sources. The assembly process includes the chemical
conversion coating (phosphate coating) of steel, galvanized steel, and
aluminum automobile body panels. The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)
filter press sludge generated from this process is presently listed as
EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019--``Wastewater treatment sludges from the
chemical conversion coating of aluminum except from zirconium
phosphating in aluminum can washing when such phosphating is an
exclusive conversion coating process.'' The listed constituents of
concern for EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019 are hexavalent chromium and
cyanide (complexed) (see appendix VII of part 261).
On January 12, 1996, GM petitioned to exclude its WWTP filter press
sludge because it believes that the petitioned waste does not meet any
of the criteria under which the waste was listed and that there are no
additional constituents or factors that could cause the waste to be
hazardous. Review of this petition included consideration of the
original listing criteria, as well as the additional factors required
by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. See Section
222 of HSWA, 42 USC 6921(f), and Sec. 260.22.
B. Background
On January 12, 1996, GM petitioned EPA to exclude an annual volume
of 1,500 cubic yards of WWTP filter press sludge from the list of
hazardous wastes contained in Sec. 261.31, and subsequently provided
additional information to complete its petition. In support of its
petition, GM submitted detailed descriptions and schematic diagrams of
its manufacturing and wastewater treatment processes, and analytical
testing results for representative samples of the petitioned waste,
including (1) the hazardous characteristics of ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity; (2) total constituent and
Extraction Procedure for Oily Wastes (OWEP, SW-846 Method 1330)
analyses for the eight toxicity characteristic metals listed in
Sec. 261.24, plus antimony, beryllium, cobalt, copper, hexavalent
chromium, nickel, tin, thallium, vanadium, and zinc; (3) total
constituent and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW-
846 Method 1311) analyses for 163 volatile and semi-volatile organic
compounds; (4) total constituent and TCLP analyses for total sulfide,
total cyanide, and complexed cyanide; and (5) total constituent
analysis for oil and grease, total organic carbon, and percent solids.
GM's automobile assembly process includes the chemical conversion
coating (phosphate coating) of automobile body panels. Prior to
phosphate coating, the automobile bodies are cleaned, rinsed, and
conditioned to promote phosphate crystal refinement. The automobile
bodies are then dipped in a 76,000 gallon tank containing the phosphate
coating solution. 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 to protect and enhance
the phosphate coating, and rinsed. The application of the chromium
sealer is a physical process and is not a chemical conversion process.
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 350 degrees
Fahrenheit for 35 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 assembly plant process wastewater and powerhouse
process wastewater. The assembly plant process wastewater is composed
primarily of car washing and plant clean-up and maintenance water, and
wastewater generated by the phosphate and electro-deposition lines. The
powerhouse wastewater is composed primarily of boiler blowdown and
cooling water. Under normal operating conditions, paint shop process
wastewater is not routed to the WWTP.
Treatment at the WWTP is a batch operation. General wastewater from
the assembly plant enters one of two solids separators. Each separator
is equipped with a surface skimmer, dragout system, and oil skimmer for
removing floating and settleable solids as well as floating oil. The
wastewater discharges through a bar screen and is mixed with the
phosphate process line wastewater, electro-deposition process line
wastewater, and powerhouse wastewater, and is discharged to one of
three batch process treatment tanks. Reagents such as sodium hydroxide,
sulfuric acid, and lime, are added and the wastewater is pumped to the
clarifiers after treatment is complete. Two clarifiers are utilized in
parallel or series to separate the liquid and solid phases of the
wastewater. Lime and a secondary flocculent aid are added to improve
coagulation and flocculation. The settled sludge is pumped to the
sludge thickener tank and the supernatant is discharged over weirs and
flows to the pH adjustment sump. The supernatant pH is adjusted with
sulfuric acid, if necessary, and discharged to the Detroit Water and
[[Page 19090]]
Sewage Department sewer system. In the sludge thickener tank, the
sludge is thickened with a sludge rake and then pumped to the sludge
conditioning tank where it is mixed with lime and filter aid. 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 and sludge conditioning tanks, drains to the
powerhouse sump and is subsequently pumped back to the WWTP for
treatment. After dewatering, the filter press cake falls into 20 cubic
yard roll-off boxes beneath the filter presses. Once a roll-off box is
filled, the waste is disposed of in a land-based management facility as
a hazardous waste.
GM submitted a signed certification stating that, based on
projected annual waste generation, the maximum annual generation rate
of WWTP filter press sludge will not exceed 1,500 cubic yards per year
(this corresponds to a mass of approximately 1,500 tons per year based
on a reported sludge density of 75 pounds per cubic foot). The EPA
reviews a petitioner's estimates of maximum waste generation and, on
occasion, has requested a petitioner to re-evaluate the estimated waste
generation rate. EPA accepts GM's estimate.
C. Waste Analysis
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 1993.
For GM's petition, the WWTP filter press sludge was sampled from
four separate roll-off boxes on February 20, 1995. 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. One composite and one grab sample of sludge was collected from
each roll-off box. Composite samples consisted of sixteen full-depth
core grab samples mixed together to form one sample. Composite samples
were analyzed for semi-volatile organic compounds and inorganic
constituents. Full-depth core grab samples were analyzed for volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). 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. Samples were
collected with a stainless steel hand auger.
Additional samples were taken in 1996 after a minor change to the
phosphate coating solution which added magnesium salts. At the request
of EPA, the results of the analyses were submitted on December 3, 1996.
To quantify the total constituent and leachate concentrations, GM
used SW-846 Method 6010 for antimony, barium, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, copper, nickel, silver, thallium, vanadium, and zinc;
Method 7060 for arsenic; Method 7421 for lead; Method 7471 for total
mercury and Method 7470 for leachate mercury; Method 7740 for selenium;
Method 7870 for tin; Method 7196 for hexavalent chromium; Method 9010
for cyanide (total and complexed); Method 9030 for sulfide; Method 8240
for volatile organic compounds; and Method 8270 for semi-volatile
organic compounds. Along with these methods, GM used the Extraction
Procedure for Oily Wastes (OWEP, SW-846 Method 1330) and the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW-846 Method 1311), as
described below, to determine leachate concentrations.
Using SW-846 Method 9071, GM determined that the samples of the
petitioned waste had oil and grease contents ranging from 25,000 mg/kg
to 41,000 mg/kg. Consistent with EPA delisting guidance, GM used OWEP
to quantify the leachable levels of metals and TCLP to quantify the
leachable levels of cyanide, sulfide, volatile organic compounds, and
semi-volatile organic compounds.
Characteristic testing of the samples included analysis of reactive
cyanide (SW-846 Method 7.3.3.2) and reactive sulfide (SW-846 Method
7.3.4.2), ignitability (SW-846 Method 1010), and corrosivity (SW-846
9045).
Table 1 presents the maximum total and leachate concentrations for
18 metals, total cyanide, complexed cyanide, and total sulfide. Table 1
also includes maximum total concentrations for reactive cyanide and
reactive sulfide.
The detection limits presented in Table 1 represent the lowest
concentrations quantifiable by GM when using the appropriate SW-846
methods to analyze its waste. (Detection limits may vary according to
the waste and waste matrix being analyzed, i.e., the ``cleanliness'' of
waste matrices varies and ``dirty'' waste matrices may cause
interferences, thus raising detection limits.)
Table 1.--Maximum Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations \1\
[WWTP Filter Press Sludge]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total OWEP/TCLP
constituent leachate
Inorganic constituents analyses (mg/ analyses (mg/
kg) l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony................................ 5.0 <0.025 arsenic.................................="" 1.1="" 0.027="" barium..................................="" 620="" 0.14="" beryllium...............................="" 0.29=""><0.001 cadmium.................................="" 1.9=""><0.003 chromium="" (total)........................="" 580="" 0.009="" chromium="" (hexavalent)...................=""><1.1><0.02 cobalt..................................="" 2.0="" 0.004="" copper..................................="" 550="" 0.47="" lead....................................="" 1300=""><0.024 mercury.................................="" 0.54=""><0.0002 nickel..................................="" 1900="" 13="" selenium................................="" 0.58=""><0.002 silver..................................=""><0.6><0.003 thallium................................=""><0.4><0.01 tin.....................................="" 220=""><0.053 vanadium................................="" 1.7="" 0.004="" zinc....................................="" 7400="" 0.74="" [[page="" 19091]]="" cyanide="" (total).........................="" 2.2=""><0.01 cyanide="" (complexed).....................="" 2.2=""><0.01 sulfide="" (total).........................="" 18="" 5.3="" cyanide="" (reactive)......................=""><0.25 na="" sulfide="" (reactive)......................=""><4 na="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" \1\="" these="" levels="" represent="" the="" highest="" concentration="" of="" each="" constituent="" found="" in="" any="" one="" sample.="" these="" levels="" do="" not="" necessarily="" represent="" the="" specific="" levels="" found="" in="" one="" sample.="">< denotes="" that="" the="" constituent="" was="" not="" detected="" at="" the="" detection="" limit="" specified="" in="" the="" table.="" na="" denotes="" that="" the="" constituent="" was="" not="" analyzed.="" gm="" analyzed="" the="" samples="" of="" petitioned="" waste="" for="" 163="" 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="" press="" sludge]="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" total="" constituent="" tclp="" leachate="" organic="" constituents="" analyses="" (mg/="" analyses="" (mg/="" kg)="" l)="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" benzene.................................="" 0.01=""><0.025 2-butanone..............................="" 0.11=""><0.05 chlorobenzene...........................="" 0.025=""><0.025 chloroform..............................="" 0.013=""><0.025 1,1-dichloroethane......................="" 0.015=""><0.025 1,2-dichloroethane......................="" 0.024="" 0.013="" ethylbenzene............................="" 0.45="" 0.009="" 4-methylphenol..........................=""><170 0.063="" naphthalene.............................=""><170 0.001="" phenol..................................=""><170 0.029="" tetrachloroethene.......................="" 0.02=""><0.025 toluene.................................="" 0.39=""><0.025 1,1,1-trichloroethane...................="" 0.018=""><0.025 xylene..................................="" 0.63="" 0.009="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" \1\="" these="" levels="" represent="" the="" highest="" concentration="" of="" each="" constituent="" found="" in="" any="" one="" sample.="" these="" levels="" do="" not="" necessarily="" represent="" the="" specific="" levels="" found="" in="" one="" sample.="">< denotes="" that="" the="" constituent="" was="" not="" detected="" at="" the="" detection="" limit="" specified="" in="" the="" table.="" hazardous="" waste="" characteristic="" testing="" found="" that="" reactive="" cyanide="" and="" reactive="" sulfide="" were="" not="" detected="" in="" the="" samples="" (see="" table="" 1).="" the="" flash="" point="" of="" the="" samples="" was="" found="" to="" be="" greater="" than="" 212="" degrees="" farenheit.="" the="" ph="" of="" the="" samples="" ranged="" from="" 8.28="" to="" 9.40.="" 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.="" d.="" epa="" evaluation="" epa="" has="" reviewed="" the="" sampling="" procedures="" used="" by="" gm="" and="" has="" determined="" that="" they="" satisfy="" epa="" criteria="" for="" collecting="" representative="" samples.="" epa="" considered="" the="" appropriateness="" of="" alternative="" waste="" management="" scenarios="" for="" gm's="" wwtp="" filter="" press="" sludge="" and="" decided,="" based="" on="" the="" information="" provided="" in="" the="" petition,="" that="" disposal="" in="" a="" subtitle="" d="" landfill="" is="" the="" most="" reasonable,="" worst-case="" scenario="" for="" this="" waste.="" under="" a="" landfill="" disposal="" scenario,="" the="" major="" exposure="" route="" of="" concern="" for="" any="" hazardous="" constituents="" would="" be="" ingestion="" of="" contaminated="" ground="" water.="" epa,="" therefore,="" evaluated="" gm's="" petitioned="" waste="" using="" the="" modified="" epa="" composite="" model="" for="" landfills="" (epacml)="" which="" predicts="" the="" potential="" for="" ground="" water="" contamination="" from="" wastes="" that="" are="" landfilled.="" see="" 56="" fr="" 32993="" (july="" 18,="" 1991)="" and="" 56="" fr="" 67197="" (december="" 30,="" 1991)="" for="" a="" detailed="" description="" of="" the="" epacml="" model,="" the="" disposal="" assumptions,="" and="" the="" modifications="" made="" for="" delisting.="" this="" model,="" which="" includes="" both="" unsaturated="" and="" saturated="" zone="" transport="" modules,="" was="" used="" to="" predict="" reasonable="" worst-case="" contaminant="" levels="" in="" ground="" water="" at="" a="" compliance="" point="" (i.e.,="" a="" receptor="" well="" serving="" as="" a="" drinking-water="" supply).="" specifically,="" the="" model="" estimated="" the="" dilution/="" attenuation="" factor="" (daf)="" resulting="" from="" subsurface="" processes="" such="" as="" three-dimensional="" dispersion="" and="" dilution="" from="" ground-water="" recharge="" for="" a="" specific="" volume="" of="" waste.="" the="" dafs="" generated="" using="" the="" epacml="" vary="" from="" a="" maximum="" of="" 100="" for="" smaller="" annual="" volumes="" of="" waste="" (i.e.,="" less="" than="" 1,000="" cubic="" yards="" per="" year)="" to="" dafs="" approaching="" ten="" for="" larger="" volume="" wastes="" (i.e.,="" 400,000="" cubic="" yards="" per="" year).="" typically,="" epa="" uses="" the="" maximum="" annual="" waste="" volume="" to="" derive="" a="" petition-specific="" daf.="" gm's="" maximum="" waste="" volume="" of="" 1,500="" cubic="" yards="" per="" year="" corresponds="" to="" a="" daf="" of="" 90.="" epa's="" evaluation,="" using="" a="" daf="" of="" 90="" and="" the="" maximum="" reported="" leachate="" concentrations="" (see="" tables="" 1="" and="" 2),="" yielded="" compliance-point="" concentrations="" (see="" table="" 3)="" that="" are="" below="" the="" current="" health-based="" levels="" used="" in="" delisting="" decision-="" making.="" [[page="" 19092]]="" table="" 3.--epacml:="" calculated="" compliance-point="" concentrations="" [wwtp="" filter="" press="" sludge]="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" compliance="" point="" health-based="" inorganic="" and="" organic="" constituents="" concentrations="" levels="" \1\="" (mg/="" (mg/l)="" l)="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" arsenic.................................="" 0.0003="" 0.05="" barium..................................="" 0.0016="" 2="" chromium="" (total)........................="" 0.0001="" 0.1="" cobalt..................................="" 0.00004="" \3\="" 2.1="" copper..................................="" 0.0052="" \3\="" 1.4="" nickel..................................="" 0.14="">, \3\ 0.7
Vanadium................................ 0.00004 0.2
Zinc.................................... 0.0082 10
1,2-Dichloroethane...................... 0.0001 0.005
Ethylbenzene............................ 0.0001 0.7
4-Methylphenol.......................... 0.0007 \3\ 0.18
Naphthalene............................. 0.00001 1
Phenol.................................. 0.00032 20
Xylene.................................. 0.0001 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Docket Report on Health-Based Levels and Solubilities Used in
the Evaluation of Delisting Petitions,'' December 1994, located in the
RCRA public docket for today's notice.
\2\ The Maximum Contaminant Level promulgated under the Safe Drinking
Water Act was vacated and remanded and subsequently removed from the
Code of Federal Regulations on June 29, 1995 (60 FR 33926).
\3\ Based on the oral reference dose from ``Risk-Based Concentration
Table, January-June 1996,'' March 7, 1997, and the equation used for
calculating delisting health-based levels found in the document
referenced in footnote.
Note: See the RCRA public docket for today's notice for the specific
reference doses and the calculation of the health-based levels.
For inorganic constituents, the maximum reported leachate
concentrations of arsenic, barium, chromium (total), cobalt, copper,
nickel, vanadium, and zinc in the WWTP filter press sludge yielded
compliance point concentrations well below the health-based levels used
in delisting decision-making. EPA did not evaluate the mobility of the
remaining inorganic constituents (i.e., antimony, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium (hexavalent), lead, mercury, selenium, silver, thallium, tin,
reactive cyanide, and reactive sulfide) from GM's waste because they
were not detected in the leachate using the appropriate analytical test
methods (see Table 1). EPA also evaluated the potential hazards of the
organic constituents detected in the TCLP extract of GM's samples
(i.e., 1,2-dichloroethane, ethylbenzene, 4-methylphenol, naphthalene,
phenol, and xylene). The calculated compliance point concentrations are
significantly below the respective health-based levels. EPA believes
that it is inappropriate to evaluate non-detectable concentrations of a
constituent of concern in its modeling efforts if the non-detectable
value was obtained using the appropriate analytical method. If a
constituent cannot be detected (when using the appropriate analytical
method with an adequate detection limit), EPA assumes that the
constituent is not present and therefore does not present a threat to
human health or the environment.
After reviewing GM's processes, EPA accepts GM's analysis that no
other hazardous constituents, other than those tested for, are likely
to be present in the waste, and that any migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste would result in concentrations below
delisting health-based levels of concern. In addition, on the basis of
test results and information provided by GM pursuant to Sec. 260.22,
EPA concludes that the petitioned waste does not exhibit any of the
characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity.
In its evaluation of GM's petition, EPA also considered the
potential impact of the petitioned waste via non-ground water routes
(i.e., air emission and surface runoff). With regard to airborne
dispersal, EPA believes that no appreciable air releases are likely
from GM's waste under any likely disposal conditions. Therefore, there
is no substantial hazard to human health from airborne exposure to
constituents from GM's petitioned waste.
EPA also considered the potential impact of the petitioned wastes
via a surface water route. EPA believes that containment structures at
municipal solid waste landfills can effectively control surface water
run-off, as the Subtitle D regulations (see 56 FR 50978, October 9,
1991) prohibit pollutant discharges into surface waters. Furthermore,
the concentrations of any hazardous constituents in the run-off will
tend to be lower than the extraction procedure test results reported in
today's notice because of the aggressive acidic media used for
extraction in the TCLP and OWEP. EPA believes that, in general,
leachate derived from the waste is unlikely to directly enter a surface
water body without first traveling through the saturated subsurface
where dilution/attenuation of hazardous constituents will also occur.
Leachable concentrations provide a direct measure of the solubility of
a toxic constituent in water, and are indicative of the fraction of the
constituent that may be mobilized in surface water, as well as ground
water. The reported TCLP and OWEP data shows that the constituents that
might be released from GM's waste to surface water would be likely to
leach in concentrations that would be below the health-based levels of
concern. EPA, therefore, concludes that GM's waste is not a significant
hazard to human health or the environment via the surface water
exposure pathway.
E. Conclusion
Based on descriptions of the process from which the petitioned
waste is derived, descriptions of GM's wastewater treatment process,
and analytical characterization of the petitioned waste, EPA believes
that GM has successfully demonstrated that the petitioned waste is not
hazardous. EPA, therefore, proposes to grant an exclusion to GM for its
WWTP filter press sludge described in its petition as EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F019. If made final, the proposed exclusion will apply to
1,500 tons (or 1,500 cubic yards) of petitioned waste generated
annually, on a calendar year basis. The facility must treat waste
generated in excess of 1,500 tons (or 1,500 cubic yards) per year as
[[Page 19093]]
hazardous. If either the manufacturing or treatment processes are
significantly altered such that an adverse change in waste composition
occurs (e.g., significantly higher levels of hazardous constituents),
this exclusion would no longer be valid.
Although management of the waste covered by this petition would be
removed from Subtitle C jurisdiction upon final promulgation of an
exclusion, this exclusion applies only where this waste is disposed of
in a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by
a State to manage municipal or industrial solid waste.
F. Verification Testing Conditions
EPA is proposing to require GM to demonstrate on an annual basis
that the constituents of concern in the petitioned waste do not exceed
the levels of concern in paragraph 1 below. These levels are based on
delisting health-based values and a DAF of 90. GM must analyze a
minimum of four representative samples of the WWTP filter press sludge
on an annual, calendar-year basis using methods with appropriate
detection levels and quality control procedures. If the level of any
constituent measured in any sample of WWTP filter press sludge exceeds
the levels set forth in paragraph 1 below, then the waste is hazardous
and must be managed in accordance with Subtitle C of RCRA.
1. Delisting Levels
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).
Arsenic--4.5; Barium--180.; Chromium (total)--9.; Cobalt--189.;
Copper--126.; Nickel--63.; Vanadium--18.; Zinc--900.; 1,2-
Dichloroethane--0.45; Ethylbenzene--63.; 4-Methylphenol--16.2;
Naphthalene--90.; Phenol--1800.; Xylene--900. These levels are derived
by back-calculating from the delisting health-based levels and a DAF of
90 for all constituents detected in the TCLP and OWEP extract of the
petitioned waste.
2. Changes in Operating Conditions
If GM significantly changes the manufacturing or treatment process
or the chemicals used in the manufacturing or treatment process, GM may
handle the WWTP filter press sludge generated from the new process
under this exclusion after the facility has demonstrated that the waste
meets the levels set in paragraph 1 and that no new hazardous
constituents listed in appendix VIII of part 261 have been introduced.
3. Data Submittals
The data obtained through annual verification testing or paragraph
2 must be submitted to U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,
IL 60604, within 60 days of sampling. Records of operating conditions
and analytical data must be compiled, summarized, and maintained on
site for a minimum of five years and must be made available for
inspection. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the
certification statement in Sec. 260.22(i)(12).
III. Effect on State Authorizations
This proposed exclusion, if promulgated, would be issued under the
Federal (RCRA) delisting program. States, however, may impose more
stringent regulatory requirements than EPA, pursuant to section 3009 of
RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision which
prohibits a Federally-issued exclusion from taking effect in the State.
Because a petitioner's waste may be regulated under a dual system
(i.e., both Federal (RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) programs), petitioners
are urged to contact State regulatory authorities to determine the
current status of their wastes under the State laws.
Furthermore, some States are authorized to administer a delisting
program in lieu of the Federal program (i.e., to make their own
delisting decisions). Therefore, this proposed exclusion, if
promulgated, would not apply in those authorized States. If the
petitioned waste will be transported to any State with delisting
authorization, GM must obtain delisting authorization from that State
before the waste may be managed as nonhazardous in the State.
IV. Effective Date
This rule, if made final, will become effective immediately upon
such final publication. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984 amended Section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become effective in
less than six months when the regulated community does not need the
six-month period to come into compliance. That is the case here,
because this rule, if finalized, would reduce the existing requirements
for persons generating hazardous wastes. In light of the unnecessary
hardship and expense that would be imposed on this petitioner by an
effective date six months after publication and the fact that a six-
month deadline is not necessary to achieve the purpose of Section 3010,
EPA believes that this exclusion should be effective immediately upon
final publication. These reasons also provide a basis for making this
rule effective immediately, upon final publication, under the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
V. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA must judge whether a regulation is
``major'' and therefore subject to the requirement of a Regulatory
Impact Analysis. The proposal to grant an exclusion is not major, 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, thereby enabling this
facility to manage its waste as non-hazardous. There is no additional
impact, therefore, due to today's proposed rule. This proposal is not a
major regulation; therefore, no Regulatory Impact Analysis is required.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to 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 (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Administrator or delegated representative may certify, however,
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of 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. Accordingly, I hereby certify
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 (Pub L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB
Control Number 2050-0053.
[[Page 19094]]
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, it
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
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. EPA finds
that today's proposed delisting decision is deregulatory in nature and
does not impose any enforceable duty upon State, local or tribal
governments or the private sector. In addition, the proposed delisting
does not establish any regulatory requirements for small governments
and so does not require a small government agency plan under UMRA
section 203.
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: April 1, 1997.
Norman R. Niedergang,
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......... Lake Orion, 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
1,500 tons per year (or 1,500 cubic yards per
year), after (insert publication date of the
final rule), and disposed of in a Subtitle D
landfill.
(1) Verification Testing: GM must implement an
annual testing program to demonstrate, based
on the analysis of a minimum of four
representative samples, that the constituent
concentrations measured in the TCLP extract
(or OWEP, where appropriate) of the waste do
not exceed the following levels (mg/l).
Arsenic--4.5; Barium--180.; Chromium (total)--
9.; Cobalt--189.; Copper--126.; Nickel--63.;
Vanadium--18.; Zinc--900.; 1,2-
Dichloroethane--0.45; Ethylbenzene--63.; 4-
Methylphenol--16.2; Naphthalene--90.; Phenol--
1800.; Xylene--900. These levels are derived
by back-calculating from the delisting health-
based levels and a DAF of 90 for all
constituents detected in the TCLP and OWEP
extract of the petitioned waste.
(2) Changes in Operating Conditions: If GM
significantly changes the manufacturing or
treatment process or the chemicals used in
the manufacturing or treatment process, GM
may handle the WWTP filter press sludge
generated from the new process under this
exclusion after the facility has demonstrated
that the waste meets the levels set forth in
paragraph 1 and that no new hazardous
constituents listed in appendix VIII of part
261 have been introduced.
(3) Data Submittals: The data obtained through
annual verification testing or paragraph 2
must be submitted to U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W.
Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, within 60
days of sampling. Records of operating
conditions and analytical data must be
compiled, summarized, and maintained on site
for a minimum of five years and must be made
available for inspection. All data must be
accompanied by a signed copy of the
certification statement in Sec.
260.22(i)(12).
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19095]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-10110 Filed 4-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
