Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Final Exclusion

Summary:

The EPA (also, “the Agency” or “we” in this preamble) is granting petitions to exclude (or “delist”) wastewater treatment plant sludge from conversion coating on aluminum generated by six automobile assembly facilities in the State of Michigan from the list of hazardous wastes. The facilities include three plants owned and operated by General Motors Corporation (GM) (Pontiac East-Pontiac, Hamtramck-Detroit, Flint Truck-Flint), one plant owned and operated by GM with an onsite wastewater treatment plant owned by the City of Lansing and operated by Trigen/Cinergy-USFOS of Lansing LLC (Lansing Grand River-Lansing), and two plants owned and operated by Ford Motor Company (Wixom Assembly Plant-Wixom, Michigan Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping and Assembly Plant-Wayne).

Today's action conditionally excludes the petitioned wastes from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of in a lined Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a State to manage industrial solid waste. The exclusions were proposed on March 7, 2002 as part of an expedited process to evaluate these wastes under a pilot project developed with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). The rule also imposes testing conditions for wastes generated in the future to ensure that these wastes continue to qualify for delisting.

Table of Contents

Table of Figures

Addresses:

The RCRA regulatory docket for this final rule, number R5-MIECOS-03, is located at the U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, and is available for viewing from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call Todd Ramaly at (312) 353-9317 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 document, contact Todd Ramaly at the address above or at (312) 353-9317.

Supplementary information:

The information in this section is organized as follows:

I. Background

A. What is a delisting petition?

B. What regulations allow a waste to be delisted?

II. The Expedited Process for Delisting

A. Why was the expedited process developed for this waste?

B. What is the expedited process to delist F019?

III. EPA's Evaluation of These Petitions

A. What information was submitted in support of these petitions?

B. How did EPA evaluate the information submitted?

IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion

A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?

B. Comments Received and Responses From EPA

V. Final Rule Granting these Petitions

A. What decision is EPA finalizing?

B. What are the terms of this exclusion?

C. When is the delisting effective?

D. How does this action affect the states?

VI. Regulatory Impact

VII. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. What Is a Delisting Petition?

A delisting petition is a request from a generator to exclude waste from the list of hazardous wastes under RCRA regulations. In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that waste generated at a particular facility does not meet any of the criteria for which EPA listed the waste as set forth in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) § 261.11 and the background document for the waste. In addition, a petitioner must demonstrate that the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (that is, ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and must present sufficient information for us to decide whether factors other than those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a hazardous waste. (See 40 CFR 260.22, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f) and the background documents for a listed waste.)

Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm that their waste remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics even if EPA has “delisted” the wastes and to ensure that future generated wastes meet the conditions set.

B. What Regulations Allow a Waste To Be Delisted?

Under 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22, and 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), facilities may petition the EPA to remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding them from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, 40 CFR 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through 266, 268, and 273 of 40 CFR. 40 CFR 260.22 provides a generator the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a “generator specific” basis from the hazardous waste lists.

II. The Expedited Process for Delisting

A. Why Was the Expedited Process Developed for This Waste?

Automobile manufacturers are adding aluminum to automobiles, which may result in increased fuel economy. However, when aluminum is conversion coated in the automobile assembly process, the resulting wastewater treatment sludge must be managed as EPA hazardous waste F019. A number of automotive assembly plants use a similar manufacturing process which generates a similar F019 waste likely to be nonhazardous. This similarity of manufacturing processes and the resultant wastes provides an opportunity for the automobile industry to be more efficient in submitting delisting petitions and EPA in evaluating them. Efficiency may be gained and time saved by using a standardized approach for gathering, submitting and evaluating data. Therefore, EPA, in conjunction with MDEQ, developed a pilot project to expedite the delisting process. This approach to making delisting determinations for this group of facilities is efficient while still being consistent with current laws and regulations and protective of human health and the environment.

By removing regulatory controls under RCRA, EPA is facilitating the use of aluminum in cars. EPA believes that incorporating aluminum in cars will be advantageous to the environment since lighter cars are capable of achieving better fuel economy.

B. What Is the Expedited Process To Delist F019?

The expedited process to delist F019 is an approach developed through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with MDEQ for gathering and evaluating data in support of multiple petitions from automobile assembly plants. The expedited delisting process is applicable to wastes generated by automobile and light truck assembly plants in the State of Michigan which use a similar manufacturing process and generate similar F019 waste.

Based on available historical data and other information, the expedited process identified 70 constituents which might be of concern in the waste and provides that the F019 sludge generated by automobile assembly plants may be delisted if the levels of the 70 constituents do not exceed the allowable levels established for each constituent in this rulemaking. The maximum annual quantity of waste generated by any single facility which may be covered by an expedited delisting is 3,000 cubic yards, however, delisting levels were also proposed for smaller quantities of waste (1,000 and 2,000 cubic yards).

This expedited delisting process provides an opportunity for the automobile industry to be more efficient in preparing petitions and for the EPA to be more efficient in evaluating them.

III. EPA's Evaluation of These Petitions

A. What Information Was Submitted in Support of These Petitions?

Each facility submitted certification that its process was the same as the process described in the MOU with MDEQ. See 67 FR 10341, March 7, 2002. Each facility also submitted an assertion that its waste does not meet the criteria for which F019 waste was listed and there are no other factors which might cause the waste to be hazardous.

To support its petition, each facility collected 6 samples representing waste generated over 6 weeks. Each sample: (1) Was analyzed for total analyses of the 70 constituents of concern; (2) was analyzed for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), SW-846 Method 1311, analyses of the 70 constituents of concern; (3) was analyzed for oil and grease; (4) with more than 1% oil and grease was analyzed for leachable metals using the Extraction Procedure for Oily Wastes (OWEP), SW-846 Method 1330A, in lieu of Method 1311; (5) was analyzed for total constituent analyses for sulfide and cyanide; (6) was measured of pH and determination that waste is not corrosive (see 40 CFR 261.22); and (7) had a determination made that the waste was not reactive or ignitable. (See 40 CFR 261.21 and 40 CFR 261.23.) All sampling and analysis was done in accordance with the sampling and analysis plan which is an appendix to the MOU and is available in the docket for this rule. The data submitted included the appropriate QA/QC information as required in the sampling and analysis plan and was validated by a third party.

A few minor changes in the sampling approach were made prior to the sampling. Instead of sampling from six different roll-off boxes, which would have required multiple sampling events or long-term storage of full roll-off boxes, the facilities were allowed to fill 55-gallon drums with aliquots from each discharge from the filter press so that each drum represented a week's worth of sludge. All drums were then sampled on the same day shortly after the end of the six-week period. The maximum values of constituents detected in any sample of the waste water treatment plant sludge are summarized in the following table along with the maximum allowable concentrations in the waste. The table also includes the maximum allowable levels in groundwater, as evaluated by the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS). The groundwater levels used by DRAS are the more conservative of either the Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) or the value calculated by DRAS based on target risk levels.

ConstituentMaximum concentration detected and maximum allowable delisting level (DL)Maximum allowable groundwater concentration (μg/L)
Ford WayneFord WixomGM LGRDL (2,000 yd 3)GM HamtramckGM Flint TruckGM PontiacDL (3,000 yd 3)
NS—not specified.
J—the numerical value is an estimated quantity.
DL—delisting level.
—not detected at the specified concentration.
Note.—These levels represent the highest constituent concentration found in any one sample and do not necessarily represent the specific levels found in one sample.
Constituents in Leachate (mg/L):
acetone 0.39J 0.1 0.1 228 0.98 0.82 0.42 171 3,750
n-butyl alcohol 0.2 0.2 0.52 228 2.8 1.0 0.2 171 3,750
ethylbenzene 0.009 0.033 0.007 42.6 0.028 0.01 0.003 31.9 700
formaldehyde 0.55 0.27 1.2 84.2 3 0.32 0.62 63 1,380
methyl ethyl ketone 0.05 0.05 0.05 200 0.13 0.6 0.05 200 22,600
toluene 0.004 0.13 0.1 60.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 45.6 1,000
trichloroethene 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.304 0.005 0.01 0.002 0.228 5.00
xylene 0.096 0.4 0.05 608 0.23 0.25 0.05 456 10,000
bis (2ethylhexyl) phthalate 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0896 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0671 1.47
butyl benzyl phthalate 0.1 0.1 0.1 92.9 0.013 0.1 0.1 69.6 1,450
naphthalene 0.02 0.02 0.02 15 0.021 0.001 0.002 11.2 246
p-cresol 1.25 0.079 0.006 11.4 0.56 0.29 0.1 8.55 188
antimony 0.0088J 0.5 0.5 0.659 0.24 0.22 0.29 0.494 6.00
arsenic 0.0135J 0.23 0.008 0.3 0.0107 0.0071 0.0045 0.224 4.87
barium 0.59J 0.72 0.76 100 0.57 1.68 0.5 100 2,000
beryllium 0.041 0.005 0.005 1.33 0.001 0.029 0.062 0.998 4.00
cadmium 0.016J 0.003J 0.015 0.48 0.007 0.014 0.16 0.36 5.00
chromium 0.031J 0.05 0.043 4.95 0.056 0.53 0.28 3.71 100
cobalt 0.027J 0.009J 0.13 72.1 0.032 0.035 0.027 54 2,250
lead 0.14J 0.019J 0.1 5 0.069 1.33 0.24 5 15.0
mercury 0.0002J 0.0002 0.0002 0.2 0.0003 0.0006 0.0004 0.2 2.00
nickel 33.4J 2.86 58.3 90.5 19 28.3 23.7 67.8 750
selenium 0.51J 0.4 0.15 1.0 0.29 0.27 0.56 1.0 50.0
silver 0.022J 0.008J 0.019 5.0 0.06 0.021 0.088 5.0 187
thallium 0.0029J 0.2 0.062 0.282 0.0014 0.0178 0.0021 0.211 2.00
tin 6.31 0.5 0.5 721 19.7 9.3 16.6 540 22,500
vanadium 0.01J 0.02 0.02 67.6 0.008 0.017 0.03 50.6 263
zinc 6.495 0.87 23.9 898 74.1 17 5.43 673 11,300
Total Constituent Concentration in Waste (mg/kg):
butanol 2.5 2.5 6.3 NS 20 22 9.8 NS
ethylbenzene 0.5 1.5 0.62 NS 2.8 0.5 0.5 NS
formaldehyde 11 5.3 24 689 60 6.4 12 535
methyl chloride 2.5 2.5 0.84 3,720 0.25 0.25 0.25 2,890
methyl ethyl ketone 2.5 2.5 2.5 NS 2.5 25 2.5 NS
toluene 0.5 0.5 0.5 NS 5.8 0.5 1.5 NS
xylene 2.1 11 3.3 NS 18 1.5 1.5 NS
bis (2ethylhexyl) phthalate 32J 15 18 NS 30 15 15 NS
butyl benzyl phthalate 75 75 38 NS 290 75 75 NS
di-n-octyl phthalate 27J 15 18 NS 31 15 15 NS
p-cresol 23 15 18 NS 15 15 15 NS
naphthalene 15 15 7.5 NS 34 15 15 NS
antimony 100 100 30 NS 174 20 50 NS
arsenic 12J 25 18 8,140 15 10 22 7,740
barium 306 496 57 NS 253 694 139 NS
beryllium 1 1.3 1 NS 1 1 1 NS
cadmium 1 4.7 1 NS 1.1 1 1.1 NS
chromium 48.5 92 758 NS 88 223 582 NS
cobalt 2.6 4.1 5.1 NS 2.3 1 5.1 NS
lead 39.5 46 10 NS 498 485 266 NS
mercury 0.052 0.34 0.088 8.92 0.13 0.1 0.04 6.34
nickel 1,170 1,270 2,460 NS 551 520 901 NS
selenium 10 17 20 NS 20 20 21 NS
silver 10 10 2 NS 1.9 1 8 NS
thallium 50 50 20 NS 20 20 20 NS
tin 156.5 154 2,120 NS 1,040 242 500 NS
vanadium 5 13 9 NS 25 6.7 19 NS
zinc 9,810 2,660 6,230 NS 9,180 3,130 8,690 NS
cyanide 0.5 0.5 0.68 NS 0.5 11 0.76 NS
sulfide 231 10 10 NS 529 69 296 NS

B. How Did EPA Evaluate the Information Submitted?

EPA compared the analytical results submitted by each facility to the maximum allowable levels calculated by the DRAS and set forth in the proposed rule (March 7, 2002, 67 FR 10341). All constituents compared favorably to the allowable levels, although acrylamide, arsenic, antimony and thallium required supplemental analyses to determine that they were not present at levels which would pose a threat.

Acrylamide: Samples were initially analyzed for acrylamide using SW-846 Method 8316. The levels reported using method 8316 were in excess of the delisting levels, although the data validation report stated that this analytical method was not sufficiently selective for acrylamide in the sludge. Acrylamide is a trace contaminant in the flocculant-aide used at waste water treatment plants. The facilities submitted a detailed mass balance which concluded that the maximum possible acrylamide that could be in the sludge would be much lower than the reported detections. Rather than accept a mass balance in lieu of the reported analytical results, EPA required further supplemental analyses by a more sensitive method using SW-846 Method 8032A in Selected Ion Monitoring (SIM) mode. Four additional samples representing two days of waste were collected at each facility. No acrylamide was detected above the level of concern.

Arsenic, Thallium, and Antimony: Estimated levels of leachable arsenic reported in some samples exceeded the delisting level, while estimated levels of leachable thallium and antimony in some samples, resulted in an aggregate hazard index (HI) in excess of 1.0. Samples which were reanalyzed for these constituents using the more sensitive Method 6020 were well below the allowable levels both individually and in the aggregate. The sample from GM-Lansing Grand River was not reanalyzed for thallium and when combined with the nickel in these samples, the hazard index remained in excess of one at an annual volume of 3,000 cubic yards. To assure that the total HI remains below one, GM has requested that the annual volume of delisted waste at the Lansing Grand River plant be changed to 2,000 cubic yards, since the estimated risk from this waste decreases as the volume decreases.

Hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene, pentachlorophenol, and 2,4 dinitrotoluene: The initial detection levels for these constituents were significantly higher than the allowable levels. To achieve lower detection levels for these constituents, samples from each facility were reanalyzed by Method 8270 using selective ion monitoring (SIM) mode. These constituents were not detected using this more sensitive method, although some detection levels were still above the allowable delisting level. We believe the analysis indicates these constituents are not present in the waste.

Methyl methacrylate: Ford did not analyze the samples for methyl methacrylate. For the annual volumewhich Ford will be disposing, the allowable concentration for methyl methacrylate is too high to be a practical concern.

IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion

A. Who Submitted Comments on the Proposed Rule?

The EPA received public comments on the proposed notice published on March 7, 2002 from Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Honda of America Mfg., Inc., Alcoa Inc., and The Aluminum Association. All commenters were supportive of the proposal and suggested expanding the project and revising the listing.

B. Comments Received and Responses from EPA

(1) EPA should revise the F019 listing to specify that wastewater treatment sludge from zinc phosphating operations is not within the scope of the listing. Data gathered as a result of the Expedited Delisting Project together with the available historical data, should provide enough data to fully characterize this waste and to justify a revision of the listing.

The Agency is now considering revising the F019 listing. EPA is examining the data collected as a result of this project, as well as past data, as a basis for a possible revision to the F019 listing.

(2) EPA should issue an interpretive rule clarifying that zinc phosphating operations are outside the scope of the F019 listing.

An interpretive rule presents administrative and technical difficulties. A revision to the listing will require a rulemaking process. See response to comment (1) above.

(3) Automobile assembly facilities outside of Michigan would like to take advantage of the precedent set by this expedited delisting project to delist F019 generated by similar operations in other states and regions.

The Agency believes that the expedited delisting procedures and requirements set forth in this proposal are appropriate for similar automotive assembly facilities outside the State of Michigan, subject to the discretion of the regulatory agency (state or region).

(4) Alternatives to landfilling like recycling should be allowed within the petition process.

The Agency does not delist wastes which are recycled because the model used to estimate risk is based only on disposal of waste in a Subtitle D landfill. The risk which might result from any other scenario is not evaluated by the delisting program. However, the Agency encourages safe recycling, and variances and exclusions from the definition of solid and hazardous wastes are available for wastes which are recycled.

(5) Analytical methods should be specified in the pre-approved common sampling plan instead of requiring each participant to submit a site-specific list of methods.

Allowing the petitioner to choose an analytical method which meets the data quality objectives specific to the delisting petition provides flexibility. Data quality objectives will vary depending on the allowable levels which are a function of the volume of petitioned waste. The Agency believes that the flexibility of performance based methods results in better data.

(6) Detection limits should not be required prior to sampling since they cannot be adequately predicted without a way to estimate matrix effects.

Although matrix effects cannot be assessed in advance of laboratory analysis, a laboratory should be able to provide estimated detection levels and reporting levels which are lower than, or at least equal to, the allowable delisting level for each constituent.

(7) Since the process generating the sludge is extremely stable, verification sampling should be conducted on an annual, instead of quarterly, basis. The requirement that any process change be promptly reported and the exclusion suspended until EPA gives written approval that the delisting can continue is an adequate safeguard justifying the decrease in sample event frequency.

Verification data submitted in conjunction with past delistings of this waste have shown significant variation on a quarterly basis over longer periods of time. Annual sampling would not detect such variations. Once enough verification data are collected to support a statistical analysis, a change in the frequency of verification sampling and/or sampling parameters may be considered.

(8) The final Federal Register should make it clear that assembly plants that manufacture light trucks are also eligible for the project.

Today's notice specifically defines eligible facilities as inclusive of manufacturers of light trucks.

(9) The table of maximum allowable levels in the March 7, 2002 proposed rule contains errors in the columns for vinyl chloride.

The error was caused by a missing space or tab in the table. Although vinyl chloride was not detected in the waste at any of the six facilities, the maximum allowable concentrations proposed for 1,000 cubic yards of waste should have been a total of 178 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and 0.00384 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in the TCLP. For 2,000 cubic yards of waste, 115 mg/kg total and 0.00234 mg/L TCLP were proposed. For 3,000 cubic yards of waste, 89.4 mg/kg total and 0.00175 mg/L TCLP were proposed.

V. Final Rule Granting these Petitions

A. What Decision Is EPA Finalizing?

Today the EPA is finalizing exclusions to conditionally delist wastewater treatment plant sludge from conversion coating on aluminum generated at the following facilities: (1) General Motors Corporation, Pontiac East Plant, in Pontiac, Michigan (3,000 cubic yards annually); (2) General Motors Corporation, Hamtramck Plant, in Detroit, Michigan (3,000 cubic yards annually); (3) General Motors Corporation, Flint Truck, in Flint, Michigan (3,000 cubic yards annually); (4) General Motors Corporation, City of Lansing, and Trigen/Cinergy-USFOS of Lansing LLC, Lansing Grand River Plant, in Lansing, Michigan (2,000 cubic yards annually); (5) Ford Motor Company, Wixom Assembly Plant, in Wixom, Michigan (2,000 cubic yards annually); and (6) Ford Motor Company, Michigan Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping and Assembly Plant, in Wayne, Michigan (2,000 cubic yards annually).

On March 7,2002, EPA proposed to exclude or delist these wastewater treatment sludges from the list of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31 and accepted public comment on the proposed rule (67 FR 10341). EPA considered all comments received, and for reasons stated in both the proposal and this document, we believe that these wastes should be excluded from hazardous waste control.

B. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion?

The facilities must dispose of the waste in a lined Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a state to manage industrial waste. The facilities must verify on a quarterly basis that the concentrations of the constituents of concern do not exceed the allowable levels set forth in this exclusion by obtaining and analyzing a representative sample of the waste according to the current waste analysis plan modified to include the improved methodologies discussed in section III. B.

The list of constituents for verification is a subset of those initially tested for and is based on the occurrence ofconstituents at the majority of facilities and the concentrations relative to the allowable levels. Since all the facilities include significant amounts of nickel in the leachate and nickel combines with thallium targeting the liver and cadmium targeting the kidney, the total hazard index from nickel and thallium combined and/or nickel and cadmium combined shall not exceed 1.0.

This exclusion applies only to the maximum annual volumes cited in section V.A. of this preamble and is effective only if all conditions contained in this rule are satisfied.

C. When Is the Delisting Effective?

This rule is effective July 30, 2003. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become effective in less than six months when the regulated community does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. This rule reduces rather than increases the existing requirements and, therefore, is effective immediately upon publication under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

D. How Does This Action Affect the States?

Today's exclusion is being issued under the federal RCRA delisting program. Therefore, only states subject to federal RCRA delisting provisions would be affected. This exclusion is not effective in states which have received authorization to make their own delisting decisions. Also, the exclusion may not be effective in states having a dual system that includes federal RCRA requirements and their own requirements. EPA allows states to impose their own regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the state. Because a dual system (that is, both federal (RCRA) and state (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's waste, we urge petitioners to contact the state regulatory authority to establish the status of their wastes under the state law.

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 a participating facility transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any state with delisting authorization, it must obtain a delisting from that state before it can manage the waste as nonhazardous in the state.

VI. Regulatory Impact

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), these rules are not of general applicability and therefore are not regulatory actions subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Because these rules are each of particular applicability relating to a particular facility, they are not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.), or to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because each of the rules will affect only a particular facility, each rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as specified in section 203 of UMRA, or communities of tribal governments, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). For the same reason, each rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). These rules also are not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because they are not economically significant.

These rules do not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(c) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing these rules, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. These rules do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.).

VII. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801et seq.) as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing these rules and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Each of these rules is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). These rules will become effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register.

List of subjects in 40 cfr part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority:

Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).

Dated: July 21, 2003. Margaret M. Guerriero,

Acting Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division.

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 of part 261 the following wastestreams are added in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:

Appendix ix to part 261—wastes excluded under §§ 260.20 and 260.22

Table 1.—Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
Facility and addressWaste description
*******
Ford Motor Company, Michigan Truck Plant and Wayne Integrated Stamping and Assembly Plant.
—Wayne, Michigan Waste water treatment plant sludge, F019, that is generated by Ford Motor Company at the Wayne Integrated Stamping and Assembly Plant from wastewaters from both the Wayne Integrated Stamping and Assembly Plant and the Michigan Truck Plant, Wayne, Michigan at a maximum annual rate of 2,000 cubic yards per year. The sludge must be disposed of in a lined landfill with leachate collection, which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized to accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge in accordance with 40 CFR part 258. The exclusion becomes effective as of July 30, 2003.
1. Delisting Levels: (A) The TCLP concentrations measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/L): Antimony—0.659; Arsenic—0.3; Cadmium—0.48; Chromium—4.95; Lead—5; Nickel—90.5; Selenium—1; Thallium—0.282; Tin—721; Zinc—898; p-Cresol—11.4; and Formaldehyde—84.2. (B) The total concentrations measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/kg): Mercury—8.92; and Formaldehyde—689. (C) The sum of the ratios of the TCLP concentrations to the delisting levels for nickel and thallium and for nickel and cadmium shall not exceed 1.0.
2. Quarterly Verification Testing: To verify that the waste does not exceed the specified delisting levels, the facility must collect and analyze one waste sample on a quarterly basis.
3. Changes in Operating Conditions: The facility must notify the EPA in writing if the manufacturing process, the chemicals used in the manufacturing process, the treatment process, or the chemicals used in the treatment process significantly change. The facility must handle wastes generated after the process change as hazardous until it has demonstrated that the wastes continue to meet the delisting levels and that no new hazardous constituents listed in appendix VIII of part 261 have been introduced and it has received written approval from EPA.
4. Data Submittals: The facility must submit the data obtained through verification testing or as required by other conditions of this rule to both U.S. EPA Region 5, Waste Management Branch (DW-8J), 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604 and MDEQ, Waste Management Division, Hazardous Waste Program Section, at P.O. Box 30241, Lansing, Michigan 48909. The quarterly verification data and certification of proper disposal must be submitted annually upon the anniversary of the effective date of this exclusion. The facility must compile, summarize, and maintain on site for a minimum of five years records of operating conditions and analytical data. The facility 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, the facility possesses or is otherwise made aware of any data (including but not limited to leachate data or groundwater monitoring data) relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent is at a level in the leachate higher than the specified delisting level, or is in the groundwater at a concentration higher than the maximum allowable groundwater concentration in paragraph (e), then the facility 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 the facility 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 the facility with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed Agency action is not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. The facility shall have 30 days from the date of the Regional Administrator's notice to present the information.
(d) If after 30 days the facility presents no further information, the Regional Administrator will issue a final written determination describing the Agency actions that are necessary to protect human health or the environment. Any required action described in the Regional Administrator's determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Regional Administrator provides otherwise.
(e) Maximum Allowable Groundwater Concentrations (ug/L): Antimony—6; Arsenic—4.87; Cadmium—5; Chromium—100; Lead—15; Nickel—750; Selenium—50; Thallium—2; Tin—22,500; Zinc—11,300; p-Cresol—188; and Formaldehyde—1,380.
Ford Motor Company, Wixom Assembly Plant:
—Wixom, Michigan Waste water treatment plant sludge, F019, that is generated by Ford Motor Company at the Wixom Assembly Plant, Wixom, Michigan at a maximum annual rate of 2,000 cubic yards per year. The sludge must be disposed of in a lined landfill with leachate collection, which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized to accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge in accordance with 40 CFR Part 258. The exclusion becomes effective as of July 30, 2003. The conditions in paragraphs (2) through (5) for Ford Motor Company—Michigan Truck Plant and Wayne Integrated Stamping Plant—Wayne, Michigan also apply.
Delisting Levels: (A) The TCLP concentrations measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/L): Antimony—0.659; Arsenic—0.3; Cadmium—0.48; Chromium—4.95; Lead—5; Nickel—90.5; Selenium—1; Thallium—0.282; Tin—721; Zinc—898; p-Cresol—11.4; and Formaldehyde—84.2. (B) The total concentrations measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/kg): Mercury—8.92; and Formaldehyde—689. (C) The sum of the ratios of the TCLP concentrations to the delisting levels for nickel and thallium and for nickel and cadmium shall not exceed 1.0.
General Motors Corporation, Flint Truck:
—Flint, Michigan Waste water treatment plant sludge, F019, that is generated by General Motors Corporation at Flint Truck, Flint, Michigan at a maximum annual rate of 3,000 cubic yards per year. The sludge must be disposed of in a lined landfill with leachate collection, which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized to accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge in accordance with 40 CFR part 258. The exclusion becomes effective as of July 30, 2003. The conditions in paragraphs (2) through (5) for Ford Motor Company—Michigan Truck Plant and Wayne Integrated Stamping Plant—Wayne, Michigan also apply.
Delisting Levels: (A) The TCLP concentrations measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/L): Antimony—0.494; Arsenic—0.224; Cadmium—0.36; Chromium—3.71; Lead—5; Nickel—67.8; Selenium—1; Thallium—0.211; Tin—540; Zinc—673; p-Cresol—8.55; and Formaldehyde—63. (B) The total concentrations measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/kg): Mercury—6.34; and Formaldehyde—535. (C) The sum of the ratios of the TCLP concentration to the delisting level for nickel and thallium and for nickel and cadmium shall not exceed 1.0.
General Motors Corporation, Hamtramck:
—Detroit, Michigan Waste water treatment plant sludge, F019, that is generated by General Motors Corporation at Hamtramck, Detroit, Michigan at a maximum annual rate of 3,000 cubic yards per year. The sludge must be disposed of in a lined landfill with leachate collection, which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized to accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge in accordance with 40 CFR part 258. The exclusion becomes effective as of July 30, 2003. The conditions in paragraphs (2) through (5) for Ford Motor Company—Michigan Truck Plant and Wayne Integrated Stamping Plant—Wayne, Michigan also apply. A maximum allowable groundwater concentration of 3,750 μg/L for n-butyl alcohol is added to paragraph (5)(e).
Delisting Levels: (A) The TCLP concentrations measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/L): Antimony—0.494; Arsenic—0.224; Cadmium—0.36; Chromium—3.71; Lead—5; Nickel—67.8; Selenium—1; Thallium—0.211; Tin—540; Zinc—673; p-Cresol—8.55; Formaldehyde—63; and n-Butyl alcohol—171. (B) The total concentrations measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/kg): Mercury—6.34; and Formaldehyde—535. (C) The sum of the ratios of the TCLP concentration to the delisting level for nickel and thallium and for nickel and cadmium shall not exceed 1.0.
General Motors Corporation, Pontiac East:
—Pontiac, Michigan Waste water treatment plant sludge, F019, that is generated by General Motors Corporation at Pontiac East, Pontiac, Michigan at a maximum annual rate of 3,000 cubic yards per year. The sludge must be disposed of in a lined landfill with leachate collection, which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized to accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge in accordance with 40 CFR part 258. The exclusion becomes effective as of July 30, 2003. The conditions in paragraphs (2) through (5) for Ford Motor Company—Michigan Truck Plant and Wayne Integrated Stamping Plant—Wayne, Michigan also apply.
Delisting Levels: (A) The TCLP concentrations measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/L): Antimony—0.494; Arsenic—0.224; Cadmium—0.36; Chromium—3.71; Lead—5; Nickel—67.8; Selenium—1; Thallium—0.211; Tin—540; Zinc—673; p-Cresol—8.55; and Formaldehyde—63. (B) The total concentrations measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/kg): Mercury—6.34; and Formaldehyde—535. (C) The sum of the ratios of the TCLP concentrations to the delisting levels for nickel and thallium and for nickel and cadmium shall not exceed 1.0.
Trigen/Cinergy-USFOS of Lansing LLC at General Motors Corporation, Lansing Grand River:
—Lansing, Michigan Waste water treatment plant sludge, F019, that is generated at General Motors Corporation's Lansing Grand River (GM-Grand River) facility by Trigen/Cinergy-USFOS of Lansing LLC exclusively from wastewaters from GM-Grand River, Lansing, Michigan at a maximum annual rate of 2,000 cubic yards per year. The sludge must be disposed of in a lined landfill with leachate collection, which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized to accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge in accordance with 40 CFR Part 258. The exclusion becomes effective as of July 30, 2003. The conditions in paragraphs (2) through (5) for Ford Motor Company—Michigan Truck Plant and Wayne Integrated Stamping Plant—Wayne, Michigan also apply.
Delisting Levels: (A) The TCLP concentrations measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/L): Antimony—0.659; Arsenic—0.3; Cadmium—0.48; Chromium—4.95; Lead—5; Nickel—90.5; Selenium—1; Thallium—0.282; Tin—721; Zinc—898; p-Cresol—11.4; and Formaldehyde—84.2. (B) The total concentrations measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/kg): Mercury—8.92; and Formaldehyde—689. (C) The sum of the ratios of the TCLP concentrations to the delisting levels for nickel and thallium and for nickel and cadmium shall not exceed 1.0.

Loading most recent entriesloading

Feedback