[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 139 (Thursday, July 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37397-37403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18044]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[FRL-5536-5]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) today is
granting a petition submitted by United Technologies Automotive, Inc.
(UTA), Dearborn, Michigan, to exclude (or ``delist''), conditionally,
on a one-time, upfront basis, a certain solid waste generated by UTA's
chemical stabilization treatment of lagoon sludge at the Highway 61
Industrial Site in Memphis, Tennessee, from the lists of hazardous
wastes in Secs. 261.31 and 261.32. Based on careful analyses of the
waste-specific information provided by the petitioner, the Agency has
concluded that UTA's petitioned waste will not adversely affect human
health and the environment. This action responds to UTA's petition to
delist this waste on a ``generator-specific'' basis from the hazardous
waste lists. In accordance with the conditions specified in this final
rule, the petitioned waste is excluded from the requirements of
hazardous waste regulations under Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The Agency also proposed to use two methods to evaluate the
potential impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the
environment: A fate and transport model (the EPA Composite Model for
Landfills, ``EPACML'' model), based on the waste-specific information
provided by the petitioner; and the generic delisting levels in
Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1) for nonwastewater residues generated from
treatment of the listed hazardous waste F006, by high temperature metal
recovery (HTMR). Specifically, EPA proposed to use the EPACML model to
calculate the concentration of each hazardous constituent that may be
present in an extract of the petitioned waste obtained by means of the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), which will not have
an adverse impact on groundwater if the petitioned waste is delisted
and then disposed in a Subtitle D landfill. EPA compared the
concentration for each hazardous constituent calculated by the EPACML
model to the generic delisting level for that constituent in
Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1), and proposed to use the lower of these two
concentrations as the delisting level for each hazardous constituent in
the waste. In response to comments received on the proposed rule, the
delisting levels in this final rule are based on the EPACML model,
rather than the generic levels in Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1).
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 18, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The RCRA regulatory docket for this final rule is located at
the EPA Library, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 345
Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30365, and is available for
viewing from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays.
The reference number for this docket is R4-96-UTEF. The public may
copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the first 100
pages, and at a cost of $0.15 per page for additional copies. For
copying at the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation,
please see below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline, toll free at (800) 424-9346, or at (703) 412-9810. For
technical information concerning this notice, contact Judy
Sophianopoulos, RCRA Compliance Section, (Mail Code 4WD-RCRA), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 345 Courtland Street, NE,
Atlanta, Georgia 30365, (404) 347-3555, x6408, or call, toll free,
(800) 241-1754, and leave a message, with your name and phone number,
for Ms. Sophianopoulos to return your call. You may also contact Jerry
Ingram, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC),
5th Floor, L & C Tower, 401 Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee 37243-
1535, (615) 532-0850. If you wish to copy documents at TDEC, please
contact Mr. Ingram for copying procedures and costs.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Authority
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition the Agency
to remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding them
from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Secs. 261.31 and
261.32. Specifically, Sec. 260.20 allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through
265 and 268 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and
Sec. 260.22 provides generators the opportunity to petition the
Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator-specific'' basis from
the hazardous waste lists. Petitioners must provide sufficient
information to EPA to allow the Agency to determine that the waste to
be excluded does not meet any of the criteria under which the waste was
listed as a hazardous waste.
In addition, the Administrator must determine, where he has a
reasonable basis to believe that factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed could
cause the waste to be a hazardous waste, that such factors do not
warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
On October 10, 1995, the Administrator delegated to the Regional
Administrators the authority to evaluate and approve or deny petitions
submitted in accordance with Secs. 260.20 and 260.22, by generators
within their Regions [National Delegation of Authority 8-19], in States
not yet authorized to administer a delisting program in lieu of the
Federal program. On March 11, 1996, the Regional Administrator of EPA,
Region 4, redelegated delisting authority to the Director of the Waste
Management
[[Page 37398]]
Division [Regional Delegation of Authority 8-19].
B. History of This Rulemaking
United Technologies Automotive, Inc. (UTA), Dearborn, Michigan,
petitioned the Agency to exclude (or ``delist''), conditionally, on a
one-time, upfront basis, a certain solid waste generated by UTA's
chemical stabilization treatment of lagoon sludge at the Highway 61
Industrial Site in Memphis, Tennessee. After evaluating the petition,
EPA proposed, on April 3, 1996, to exclude UTA's waste from the lists
of hazardous waste under Secs. 261.31 and 261.32 (see 61 FR 14696-
14709, April 3, 1996).
This rulemaking addresses public comments received on the proposal
and finalizes the proposed decision to grant UTA's petition.
II. Disposition of Delisting Petition United Technologies
Automotive, Inc., Dearborn, Michigan
A. Proposed Exclusion
United Technologies Automotive, Inc. (UTA), located in Dearborn,
Michigan, petitioned the Agency to exclude, conditionally, on a one-
time, upfront basis, the treated lagoon waste which will be generated
during a removal action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The removal action is
required by the Unilateral Administrative Order (``the UAO'') issued to
UTA by EPA, on January 26, 1995. The waste to be treated was generated
prior to 1980 in seven lagoons formerly used to manage electroplating
wastewater at the Highway 61 Industrial Site in Memphis, Tennessee
(``the Site''). UTA's petition states that electroplating operations at
the Site were conducted between the early 1960s and 1973, and no
electroplating wastewater sludge was generated after 1973.
Notwithstanding the fact that the waste was generated prior to 1980,
the waste so generated meets the listing definition of EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F006--``Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating
operations except from the following processes: (1) Sulfuric acid
anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating on carbon steel; (3) zinc
plating (segregated basis) on carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-
aluminum plating on carbon steel; (5) cleaning/stripping associated
with tin, zinc, and aluminum plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical
etching and milling of aluminum''--when it is actively managed by
excavation and treatment after the effective date of the listing of
F006. (Original listing of F006 by Interim Final Rule in 45 FR 33112-
33133, May 19, 1980; Modified in 45 FR 74384-74892, Nov. 12, 1980; and
clarified by Interpretative Rule in 51 FR 43350-43351, Dec.2, 1986).
See 51 FR 40577, Nov. 7, 1986; 53 FR 31147-31148, Aug. 17, 1988; 53 FR
51444 and 51445, Dec. 21, 1988; 55 FR 22678, June 1, 1990; and Chemical
Waste Management v. EPA, 869 F.2d at 1535-37 (D.C. Cir. 1989), for
Agency position on active management. UTA proposed to treat the sludge
by chemical stabilization, and to delist the treatment residue, which
is also classified as F006 by application of Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(i), the
derived-from rule. See 57 FR 7628, Mar. 3, 1992. By application of the
``contained-in policy,'' any lagoon soil excavated and treated with the
sludge must also be managed as F006. See memorandum, dated February 17,
1995, from Devereaux Barnes to Norm Niedergang, and Region 4 Guidance
Number TSC-92-02, dated August 1992.
UTA petitioned the Administrator, in October 1995, to exclude its
waste, generated by treatment of sludges from Site Lagoons 1 through 6.
Sludges from Lagoon 7 will not be removed and treated, because
constituent concentrations were found, by total analysis of these
samples, to be below the cleanup levels required by the UAO. On
November 21, 1995, in accordance with the delegation of delisting
authority by the Administrator to the Regional Administrators, UTA
submitted to EPA, Region 4, the petition to delist F006 generated by
chemical stabilization of sludges from the six lagoons at the Site.
The hazardous constituents of concern for which F006 was listed are
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and cyanide (complexed).
Chemically stabilized sludge and soil from the six lagoons at the Site
is the waste which is the subject of this petition. UTA petitioned the
Agency to exclude its waste because it does not believe that the waste
meets the criteria of the listing.
UTA claims that its chemically stabilized sludge/soil is not
hazardous because the constituents of concern, although present in the
waste, are present in either insignificant concentrations or, if
present at significant levels, are essentially in immobile forms. UTA
also believes that this waste is not hazardous for any other reason
(i.e., 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 40 CFR
260.22(d)(2)-(4).
In support of its petition, UTA submitted: (1) Detailed
descriptions of the waste and history of its management; (2) detailed
descriptions of all previously known and current activities at the
Site; (3) results from total constituent analyses for arsenic, barium,
cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver, (the eight
Toxicity Characteristic (TC) metals listed in Sec. 261.24); the
priority pollutant metals, including nickel, (a hazardous constituent
for which F006 is listed), antimony, and thallium; and cyanide; (4)
results for the eight Toxicity Characteristic (TC) metals from the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP; Method 1311 in ``Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA
Publication SW-846 [Third Edition (November 1986), as amended by
Updates I (July 1992), II (September 1994), IIA (August 1993), and IIB
(January 1995)]; methods in this publication are referred to in the
proposed rule and in today's final rule as ``SW-846,'' followed by the
appropriate method number); (5) results from the Multiple Extraction
Procedure (MEP; SW-846 Method 1320) for cadmium and chromium; (6)
results from the analysis for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH, Method
418.1 in ``Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,'' EPA
Publication EPA-600/4-79-020); (7) results from characteristics testing
for ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity; (8) results from total
constituent analyses for 33 volatile organic compounds and 64
semivolatile organic constituents, including the TC organic
constituents; and (9) groundwater monitoring data collected from wells
monitoring the on-site lagoons.
After reviewing the petition, the Agency proposed to grant the
exclusion to UTA, on April 3, 1996. See 61 FR 14696-14709, April 3,
1996, for details.
Today's final rule granting this petition for delisting is the
result of the Agency's evaluation of UTA's petition and response to
public comments.
B. Response to Public Comments
Comments: The Agency received public comments from two interested
parties (UTA (1) and Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc. (HRD)
(2)) on the April 3, 1996 proposal. The docket reference numbers for
these comments are R4-UTEP-18 and R4-UTEP-19, respectively, and the
comments are available for viewing at
[[Page 37399]]
the EPA Library, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 345
Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30365, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The comments
are also included in the docket for this final rule, reference number
R4-96-UTEF, available at the EPA, Region 4, Library.
Commenter (1), UTA: Specific comments included the following, where
page numbers in parentheses are page numbers of the proposed rule (61
FR 14696-14709, April 3, 1996):
(a) UTA is located in Dearborn, Michigan (page 14696);
(b) Samples #36 and #6-36 were stabilized with 10% lime kiln dust
and 5% portland cement (page 14701);
(c) A revised estimate of the treated waste volume is 20,500 cubic
yards, which the commenter states should not affect the dilution
attenuation factor (DAF) of 100, in the proposed rule (pages 14699,
14702, 14703, and 14708); and
(d) If the delisting petition is approved, UTA proposes to dispose
of the delisted waste at Browning-Ferris Industries' (BFI's) Subtitle D
facility in South Shelby County, Tennessee (page 14701).
The commenter stated the following objections to the Agency's
delisting levels and the method for determining them:
(e) The generic levels in 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1) were deemed
inappropriate by UTA, because they are technology-based; UTA considers
the risk-based levels obtained by the EPACML model to be more
appropriate (pages 14696, 14705, 14708); and
(f) UTA disagrees with the appropriateness of EPA's statement that
it is generally unable to predict or control how a delisted waste is
managed, in that UTA's waste is subject to a CERCLA Administrative
Order; UTA also believes that the Agency should consider the site-
specific conditions of BFI's Subtitle D landfill in Shelby County,
Tennessee (page 14698).
The majority of the remaining comments dealt with a comparison
between the proposed delisting levels and levels proposed in the
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) (see 60 FR 66334, December
21, 1995). UTA believes that the HWIR levels are more appropriate for
its petitioned waste than the proposed delisting levels.
Response to Commenter (1), UTA: The changes recommended in specific
comments (a), (b), (c), and (d) have been made, and added to the final
rule and the docket for the final rule. In the April 3, 1996 proposal,
the Agency determined that disposal in any Subtitle D landfill is the
most reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for UTA's petitioned
waste, that the major exposure route of concern for any hazardous
constituents would be ingestion of contaminated groundwater, and that
the EPACML fate and transport model, modified for delisting, yielded a
DAF of 100 for a one-time disposal of 11,500 cubic yards. EPA agrees
with UTA that the revised estimated volume of 20,500 cubic yards yields
a DAF closer to 100 than to 96. However, in order to account for
possible variations associated with volume estimates, the Agency has
selected a slightly lower, thus more stringent, DAF of 96 for UTA's
revised estimated volume of 20,500 cubic yards, which corresponds to a
one-time waste volume of 25,000 cubic yards. In keeping with past
delisting decisions for chemically stabilized waste where the
constituents of concern are immobilized (see, for example, 61 FR 18088-
18091, April 24, 1996 and 60 FR 31107-31115, June 13, 1995), the Agency
used concentrations in waste leachate as delisting levels for this
final rule, rather than total concentrations, such as proposed in the
HWIR.
With regard to the objection raised in subparagraph (f) above,
EPA's position continues to be that site-specific conditions at
landfills are not appropriate for consideration in delisting petitions.
Commenter (1), UTA, did not submit site-specific conditions. EPA notes
that both the CERCLA Administrative Order and Section II.E. of the
proposed rule (61 FR 14706, April 3, 1996) state that UTA's petitioned
waste is subject to all applicable Federal and State solid waste
management regulations.
After careful consideration, EPA agrees that the objection raised
by UTA in subparagraph (e) above is reasonable, in that the generic
levels of Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1), in 60 FR 31107-31115, June 13,
1995, were selected for the delisting of a large-volume, continually
generated, multi-site waste, rather than for a one-time delisting of a
relatively small volume of waste. For this reason, and because the
petitioned waste is subject to a CERCLA Administrative Order, the
Agency is finalizing the exclusion language in 40 CFR part 261,
Appendix IX, Table 1 to delist 20,500 cubic yards of the petitioned
waste, UTA's revised estimated volume as stated in its comments, with
the delisting levels revised as shown in Table 1 below. The levels were
calculated by multiplying the appropriate health-based level for each
constituent, which is the maximum contaminant level (MCL), as
established by the Safe Drinking Water Act, by an EPACML DAF of 96.
Table 1.--Revised Delisting Levels for Treated Waste Generated by UTA at Highway 61 Industrial Site, Memphis,
Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delisting
level final
Maximum rule [= (DAF
Constituent contaminant of 96) x Delisting level proposed rule (mg/l
level (MCL) MCL] (mg/l in TCLP \1\ leachate \2\)
(mg/l) in TCLP \1\
Leachate)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium........................................ 0.005 0.48 0.05.
Chromium....................................... 0.1 9.6 0.33.
Lead........................................... \3\ 0.015 1.4 0.15.
Nickel......................................... \4\ 0.1 9.6 1.0.
Cyanide........................................ 0.2 19.2 1.8 mg/kg \2\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ TCLP stands for the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, Method 1311 in ``Test Methods for Evaluating
Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA Publication SW-846 [Third Edition (November 1986), as amended by
Updates I (July 1992), II (September 1994), IIA (August 1993), and IIB (January 1995).
\2\ The cyanide delisting level in the proposed rule is in units of mg/kg, by total analysis of unextracted
waste.
\3\ This value is an action level, as defined in 40 CFR 141.2, rather than a MCL.
[[Page 37400]]
\4\ This value is from Draft Docket Report on Health-Based Levels and Solubilities used in the Evaluation of
Delisting Petitions, Submitted Under 40 CFR Sec. 260.20 and Sec. 260.22, dated July 1994, rather than a MCL.
This document is in the docket for the proposed rule, and is one of the documents with reference number R4-96-
UTEP-8.
Commenter (2), HRD: The commenter did not object to the proposed
decision to delist UTA's waste, since the constituent levels in the
waste were low enough that HRD did not feel that any statutory mandates
were violated.
The commenter summarized two principal statutory requirements that
HRD feels must be accounted for in order for any delisting decision to
be valid:
(a) The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 established a hierarchy of
waste management methods, in order of decreasing preference, as (1)
Source reduction, (2) recycling, (3) treatment, and (4) land disposal;
the commenter emphasized that recycling, such as high temperature metal
recovery, is favored over waste treatment methods, such as
stabilization; the commenter also stated that the low levels of metals
in the petitioned waste were not amenable to recycling; and
(b) The Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) include stringent treatment
standards which must be met prior to land disposal of hazardous wastes;
the commenter felt that LDR treatment standards should be one of the
``factors (including additional constituents) other than those for
which the waste was listed'' that could cause the waste to be a
hazardous waste or to be retained as a hazardous waste (see 40 CFR
260.22(d)(2)); again the commenter did not feel that the constituent
levels in the petitioned waste were high enough to exceed LDR treatment
standards.
Response to Commenter (2), HRD: EPA agrees with the commenter that
the statutory information summarized above presents very important
considerations. The Agency also agrees that the decision to delist the
waste which is the subject of this final rule is not in conflict with
either of these statutes.
It is also EPA's position that if Agency evaluation of a delisting
petition reveals that the petitioned waste meets all the appropriate
criteria in Petitions to Delist Hazardous Wastes--A Guidance Manual,
Second Edition, EPA Publication No. EPA/530-R-93-007, March 1993 (see
docket to the proposed rule, reference number R4-96-UTEP-8), the
conditions specified in 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2) have been met, and the
waste need not be subject to RCRA Subtitle C. That is to say, the
delisting levels established by the Agency are protective of human
health and the environment, and a waste that meets these levels does
not have factors that ``could cause the waste to be a hazardous
waste.'' LDR treatment standards are based on what is achievable by the
best demonstrated available technology (BDAT). Because the standards
are not risk-based, the concentration levels which are LDR treatment
standards are often below those that would be necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
The Agency responded, in an earlier rulemaking, to an earlier,
similar comment by HRD concerning the effect that delisting stabilized
wastes might have on the recycling of wastes to recover metals (see 60
FR 31109, June 13, 1995). EPA's position continues to be that no
policies are undermined nor regulations violated by the delisting of a
waste which meets all applicable criteria for delisting. Specifically,
the existence of an alternate treatment and/or recycling technology is
not a factor that ``could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste.''
Final Agency Decision
For the reasons stated in both the proposal and this final rule,
the Agency believes that UTA's petitioned waste should be excluded from
hazardous waste control. The Agency, therefore, is granting a final
exclusion to United Technologies Automotive, Inc., Dearborn, Michigan,
to exclude (or ``delist''), conditionally, on a one-time, upfront
basis, its petitioned waste, which consists of the treated waste
generated by UTA's chemical stabilization treatment of lagoon sludge at
the Highway 61 Industrial Site in Memphis, Tennessee, and described in
the petition as F006. This one-time exclusion applies to 20,500 cubic
yards of waste covered by UTA's delisting petition, and is conditioned
upon verification testing which demonstrates that the waste meets the
delisting levels summarized in Table 1 above, and specified in 40 CFR
Part 261, Appendix IX, Table I, as amended in this final rule.
Although management of the waste covered by this petition is
relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction by this final exclusion, the
generator of the delisted waste must either treat, store, or dispose of
the waste in an on-site facility, or ensure that the waste is delivered
to an off-site storage, treatment, or disposal facility, either of
which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a State to manage
municipal or industrial solid waste. Alternatively, the delisted waste
may be delivered to a facility that beneficially uses or reuses, or
legitimately recycles or reclaims the waste, or treats the waste prior
to such beneficial use, reuse, recycling, or reclamation (see 40 CFR
part 260, Appendix I). The petitioned waste in this final rule is also
subject to a CERCLA Administrative Order, and UTA has stated its
intention (reference number R4-UTEP-18) to dispose of the delisted
waste in BFI's Subtitle D Landfill in Shelby County, Tennessee.
III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion
The final exclusion being granted today is issued under the Federal
(RCRA) delisting program. States, however, are allowed to impose their
own, non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more stringent than
EPA's, 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 States. 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 exclusion does not apply in those
authorized States. If the petitioned waste will be transported to and
managed in any State with delisting authorization, UTA must obtain
delisting authorization from that State before the waste may be managed
as nonhazardous in that State.
IV. Effective Date
This rule is effective on July 18, 1996. 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 reduces 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
[[Page 37401]]
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, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
V. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory
actions. The effect of this rule is to reduce the overall costs and
economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. The
reduction is achieved by excluding waste from EPA's lists of hazardous
wastes, thereby enabling the facility to treat its waste as non-
hazardous. This rule does not represent a significant regulatory action
under the Executive Order, and no assessment of costs and benefits is
necessary. 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
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 that
describes the impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., 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 a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
This rule will not have an adverse economic impact on any small
entities since its effect will be to reduce the overall costs of EPA's
hazardous waste regulations and will be limited to one facility.
Accordingly, I hereby certify that this regulation 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 final 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.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``UMRA''), Pub. L. 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 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
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, today's 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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: June 25, 1996.
James S. Kutzman,
Associate Director, Office of RCRA & Fed. Facilities.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR Part 261 is 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 to part 261 add the following
wastestream 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
United Technologies Automotive, Inc... Dearborn, Michigan.................... Chemically stabilized wastewater
treatment sludge and soil
(CSWWTSS) (EPA Hazardous Waste
No. F006) that United
Technologies Automotive (UTA)
will generate during CERCLA
removal of untreated sludge and
soil (EPA Hazardous Waste No.
F006) from six lagoons at the
Highway 61 Industrial Site in
Memphis, Tennessee. This is an
upfront, one-time exclusion for
approximately 20,500 cubic
yards of waste that will be
disposed of in a Subtitle D
landfill after [insert date of
final rule.] UTA must
demonstrate that the following
conditions are met for the
exclusion to be valid:
[[Page 37402]]
(1) Verification Testing
Requirements: Sample collection
and analyses, including quality
control procedures must be
performed according to SW-846
methodologies.
(A) Initial Verification
Testing: UTA must collect and
analyze a representative sample
of every batch, for eight
sequential batches of CSWWTSS
generated during full-scale
operation. A batch is the
CSWWTSS generated during one
run of the stabilization
process. UTA must analyze for
the constituents listed in
Condition (3). A minimum of
four composite samples must be
collected as representative of
each batch. UTA must report
operational and analytical test
data, including quality control
information, no later than 60
days after the generation of
the first batch of CSWWTSS.
(B) Subsequent Verification
Testing: If the initial
verification testing in
Condition (1)(A) is successful,
i.e., delisting levels of
condition (3) are met for all
of the eight initial batches,
UTA must test a minimum of 5%
of the remaining batches of
CSWWTSS. UTA must collect and
analyze at least one composite
sample representative of that
5%. The composite must be made
up of representative samples
collected from each batch
included in the 5%. UTA may, at
its discretion, analyze
composite samples gathered more
frequently to demonstrate that
smaller batches of waste are
non-hazardous.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
UTA must store as hazardous all
CSWWTSS generated until
verification testing as
specified in Condition (1)(A)
and (1)(B), as appropriate, is
completed and valid analyses
demonstrate that Condition (3)
is satisfied. If the levels of
constituents measured in the
samples of CSWWTSS do not
exceed the levels set forth in
Condition (3), then the CSWWTSS
is non-hazardous and may be
managed in accordance with all
applicable solid waste
regulations. If constituent
levels in a sample exceed any
of the delisting levels set
forth in Condition (3), the
batch of CSWWTSS generated
during the time period
corresponding to this sample
must be retreated until it
meets the delisting levels set
forth in Condition (3), or
managed and disposed of in
accordance with Subtitle C of
RCRA.
(3) Delisting Levels: All
leachable concentrations for
these constituents must not
exceed the following levels
(ppm): Cadmium--0.48; chromium--
9.6; cyanide--19.2; lead--1.4;
and nickel--9.6. Metal
concentrations in the waste
leachate must be measured by
the method specified in 40 CFR
261.24. Total cyanide
concentration in the leachate
must be measured by Method 9010
or Method 9012 of SW-846.
(4) Changes in Operating
Conditions: UTA must notify the
Agency in writing when
significant changes in the
stabilization process are
necessary (e.g., use of new
stabilization reagents).
Condition (1)(A) must be
repeated for significant
changes in operating
conditions.
(5) Data Submittals: UTA must
notify EPA when the full-scale
chemical stabilization process
is scheduled to start
operating. Data obtained in
accordance with Conditions
(1)(A) must be submitted to
Jeaneanne M. Gettle, Acting
Chief, RCRA Compliance Section,
Mail Code: 4WD-RCRA, U.S. EPA,
Region 4, 345 Courtland Street,
N.E., Atlanta, Georgia. 30365.
This notification is due no
later than 60 days after the
first batch of CSWWTSS is
generated. Records of operating
conditions and analytical data
from Condition (1) must be
compiled, summarized, and
maintained by UTA for a minimum
of five years, and must be
furnished upon request by EPA
or the State of Tennessee, and
made available for inspection.
Failure to submit the required
data within the specified time
period or maintain the required
records for the specified time
will be considered by EPA, at
its discretion, sufficient
basis to revoke the exclusion
to the extent directed by EPA.
All data must be accompanied by
a signed copy of the following
certification statement to
attest to the truth and
accuracy of the data submitted:
Under civil and criminal penalty
of law for the making or
submission of false or
fraudulent statements or
representations (pursuant to
the applicable provisions of
the Federal Code, which
include, but may not be limited
to, 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 42
U.S.C. 6928), I certify that
the information contained or
accompanying this document is
true, accurate and complete.
As to the (those) identified
section(s) of this document for
which I cannot personally
verify its (their) truth and
accuracy, I certify as the
company official having
supervisory responsibility for
the persons who, acting under
my direct instructions, made
the verification that this
information is true, accurate
and complete.
In the event that any of this
information is determined by
EPA in its sole discretion to
be false, inaccurate or
incomplete, and upon conveyance
of this fact to the company, I
recognize and agree that this
exclusion of waste will be void
as if it never had effect or to
the extent directed by EPA and
that the company will be liable
for any actions taken in
contravention of the company's
RCRA and CERCLA obligations
premised upon the company's
void exclusion.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37403]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-18044 Filed 7-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
