Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Final Exclusion, 21153-21159 [05-8189]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78 / Monday, April 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does 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). This action merely
approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. This rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This rule does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule
may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a
rule report, which includes a copy of
the rule, to each House of the Congress
and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:22 Apr 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
21153
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by June 24, 2005.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ‘‘the Agency’’
or ‘‘we’’ in this preamble) is granting a
petition to exclude (or ‘‘delist’’)
wastewater treatment plant sludge from
conversion coating on aluminum
generated by the Ford Motor Company
Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant (DTP)
in Dearborn, Michigan from the list of
hazardous wastes.
Today’s action conditionally excludes
the petitioned waste from the
requirements of hazardous waste
regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
when disposed of in a lined subtitle D
landfill which is permitted, licensed, or
registered by a State to manage
industrial solid waste. The exclusion
was proposed on March 7, 2002 as part
of an expedited process to evaluate this
waste under a pilot project developed
with the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ). The
rule also imposes testing conditions for
waste generated in the future to ensure
that this waste continues to qualify for
delisting.
DATES: This rule is effective on April 25,
2005.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. R5–MIECOS–01. All documents in
the docket are listed in the index.
Publicly available docket materials are
available in hard copy at the U.S. EPA
Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,
IL 60604. This Docket Facility is open
from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The
public may copy material from the
regulatory docket at $0.15 per page.
Contact Judy Kleiman for appointments
at the address above, by email at
kleiman.judy@epa.gov or by calling
(312) 886–1482.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical information concerning this
document, contact Judy Kleiman, Waste,
Pesticides, and Toxics Division, (Mail
Code: DW–8J), U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W.
Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604;
telephone number: (312) 886–1482; fax
number: (312) 353–4788; e-mail address:
kleiman.judy@epa.gov.
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 29, 2005.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
I
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(335) to read as
follows:
I
§ 52.220
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(335) New and amended regulations
for the following APCDs were submitted
on January 13, 2005, by the Governor’s
designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Monterey Bay Unified Air
Pollution Control District.
(1) Rule 408, adopted on September 1,
1974 and revised on September 15,
2004.
(2) Rule 438, adopted on April 16,
2003 and revised on September 15,
2004.
(B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District.
(1) Rule 4103, adopted on June 18,
1992 and amended on September 16,
2004.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–8188 Filed 4–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40 CFR Part 261
[R5–MIECOS–01; SW–FRL–7902–9]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste Final Exclusion
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\25APR1.SGM
25APR1
21154
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78 / Monday, April 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
The
information in this section is organized
as follows:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. What is a delisting petition?
B. What regulations allow a waste to be
delisted?
C. What waste did DTP petition to delist?
II. The Expedited Process for Delisting
A. Why was the expedited process
developed for this waste?
B. What is the expedited process to delist
F019?
III. EPA’s Evaluation of This Petition
A. What information was submitted in
support of this petition?
B. How did EPA evaluate the information
submitted?
IV. Public Comments Received on the
Proposed Expedited Process
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. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition?
A delisting petition is a request from
a generator to exclude waste from the
list of hazardous wastes under RCRA
regulations. In a delisting petition, the
petitioner must show that waste
generated at a particular facility does
not meet any of the criteria for which
EPA listed the waste as set forth in title
40 Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR)
261.11 and the background document
for the waste. In addition, a petitioner
must demonstrate that the waste does
not exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics (that is, ignitability,
reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and
must present sufficient information for
us to decide whether factors other than
those for which the waste was listed
warrant retaining it as a hazardous
waste. (See 40 CFR 260.22, 42 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.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:22 Apr 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 from
the lists of hazardous wastes on a
‘‘generator specific’’ basis.
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.
C. What Waste Did DTP Petition To
Delist?
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. Delisting
levels were also proposed for smaller
quantities of 1,000 and 2,000 cubic
yards.
DTP petitioned to exclude wastewater
treatment sludge resulting from a zinc
phosphating conversion coating process
on truck bodies which have aluminum
components. When treated, the
wastewater from the conversion coating
on aluminum results in a listed waste,
F019. The wastewater from the
phosphating process entering the
wastewater treatment plant combines
with wastewaters from other operations
at the plant including cleaning and
rinsing operations, electrocoating
processes, vehicle leak testing, and floor
scrubbing. Wastewaters include alkaline
cleaners, surfactants, organic detergents,
rinse conditioners from cleaning
operations and overflows and rinse
water from electrocoating. All sludge
from the treatment of this wastewater is
regulated as RCRA hazardous waste
F019.
II. The Expedited Process for Delisting
A. Why Was the Expedited Process
Developed for This Waste?
Automobile manufacturers are adding
aluminum components to automobile
and light truck bodies. When aluminum
is conversion coated in a zinc
phosphating process in automobile
assembly plants, the resulting
wastewater treatment sludge must be
managed as EPA hazardous waste F019.
F019 wastes generated at other auto
assembly plants using the same zinc
phosphating and wastewater treatment
processes have been shown to be
nonhazardous.
This similarity of manufacturing
processes and the resultant wastes
provides an opportunity for the
automobile industry to be more efficient
in submitting delisting petitions and for
EPA to be more efficient in evaluating
them. Efficiency may be gained and
time saved by using a standardized
approach for gathering, submitting and
evaluating data. Therefore, EPA, in
conjunction with MDEQ, developed a
pilot project to expedite the delisting
process. This approach to making
delisting determinations for this group
of facilities is efficient while still being
consistent with current laws and
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
III. EPA’s Evaluation of This Petition
A. What Information Was Submitted in
Support of This Petition?
DTP submitted certification that its
process was the same as the process
described in the MOU between Region
5 and MDEQ. See 67 FR 10341, March
7, 2002. The facility also asserted 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 exclusion
demonstration, Ford Dearborn collected
six samples representing waste
generated over a seven week period.1
Each sample was analyzed for: (1) Total
analyses of 69 2 constituents of concern;
1 Because the plant was shut down from July 4–
11, 2004, the time necessary to collect 6 samples
was extended to 7 weeks.
2 The expedited delisting project originally
required analysis of 70 constituents. However, the
analysis of acrylamide required extreme methods to
achieve a detection level at the level of concern.
Since no acrylamide was detected in any sample
analyzed by the original facilities participating in
E:\FR\FM\25APR1.SGM
25APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78 / Monday, April 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
(2) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP), SW–846 Method
1311, analyses of 69 constituents of
concern; (3) oil and grease; and (4) total
constituent analyses for sulfide and
cyanide. In addition, the pH of each
sample was measured and a
determination was made that the waste
was not ignitable, corrosive or reactive
(see 40 CFR 261.21–261.23). With the
exception of the minor change noted
The sludge for each week was placed in
a separate drum. On July 27, 2004,
composite and grab samples were
collected from each of the six drums.
The maximum values of constituents
detected in any sample of the waste and
in a TCLP extract of that waste are
summarized in the following table. The
data submitted included the appropriate
QA/QC information validated by a third
party.
here, all sampling and analyses were
done in accordance with the sampling
and analysis plan which is an appendix
to the MOU and is available in the
docket for this rule. Instead of sampling
directly from six different roll-off boxes
which would have required multiple
sampling events or long-term storage of
full roll-off boxes, DTP collected
representative amounts of sludge each
week from June 8 through July 27, 2004.
Maximum observed concentration
Constituent detected
Total
(mg/kg)
TCLP
(mg/L)
21155
Maximum allowable
concentration
Total
(mg/kg)
TCLP
(mg/L)
GW
(ug/L)
Volatile Organic Compounds
formaldehyde .............................................................
n-butyl alcohol ............................................................
toluene .......................................................................
13
< 26 R
< 0.5
0.64
< 0.5 R
0.0021
700
NA
NA
80
230
60
1,400
4,000
1,000
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate .........................................
p-cresol ......................................................................
di-n-octylphthalate ......................................................
pentachlorophenol ......................................................
1.9
< 1.5
1.9
< 1.5
< 0.005
0.042
0.003
0.0045
NA
NA
NA
3,000
< 0.02
1.02
< 0.05
0.03
< 0.1
38.9
< 0.05
< 0.5
0.02
27.4
8,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.09
11
0.11
3 0.009
1.5
200
1.3
0.15
Metals
arsenic ........................................................................
barium ........................................................................
chromium ...................................................................
cobalt ..........................................................................
lead ............................................................................
nickel ..........................................................................
silver ...........................................................................
tin ...............................................................................
vanadium ....................................................................
zinc .............................................................................
< 50
1700
49
1.7
36
2610
288
292
226
14,200
0.3
100
5
70
5
90
5
700
70
900
5
2,000
100
2,000
15
800
200
20,000
300
11,000
Miscellaneous
corrosivity (pH) ...........................................................
Oil & grease ...............................................................
sulfide .........................................................................
2 < x < 12.5
NA
See 40 CFR 261.23
8020
36
NA
NA
NA
R— The numerical value is not useable.
<— Not detected at the specified concentration.
NA—not applicable.
These levels represent the highest constituent concentration found in any one sample and do not necessarily represent the specific levels
found in one sample.
B. How Did EPA Evaluate the
Information Submitted?
EPA compared the analytical results
submitted by DTP to the maximum
allowable levels calculated by the DRAS
and set forth in the proposed rule (67 FR
10341, March 7, 2002). The maximum
allowable levels for constituents
detected in the waste or a TCLP extract
of the waste are summarized in the table
above, along with the observed levels.
The table also includes the maximum
allowable levels in groundwater at a
potential receptor well, as evaluated by
the Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS). These levels are the more
conservative of either the Safe Drinking
Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL) or the health-based value
calculated by DRAS based on the target
cancer risk level of 10¥6. For arsenic,
the target cancer risk was set at 10¥4 in
consideration of the MCL and the
potential for natural occurrence. The
maximum allowable groundwater
concentration and delisting level for
arsenic correspond to a drinking water
concentration less than one half the
current MCL of 10 µg/L.
EPA also used the DRAS program to
estimate the aggregate cancer risk and
hazard index for constituents detected
in the waste. The aggregate cancer risk
is the cumulative total of all individual
constituent cancer risks. The hazard
the expedited delisting project, the Agency decided
it would not be appropriate to require analysis for
acrylamide.
3 In the proposed rule, the allowable level for
TCLP PCP was set at 0.004 mg/L for participants
generating 2,000 cubic yards annually. This value
was based on child-dermal exposure to
contaminated groundwater, but the model was
found to overestimate this exposure by using an
inappropriate exposure duration. This error in the
software has since been corrected. Using the correct
exposure factors, the limiting pathway is adultdermal exposure to contaminated groundwater with
an allowable level of 0.009 mg/L.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:22 Apr 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25APR1.SGM
25APR1
21156
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78 / Monday, April 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
index is a similar cumulative total of
non-cancer effects. The target aggregate
cancer risk is 1×10¥5 and the target
hazard index is one. The wastewater
treatment plant sludge at DTP met both
of these criteria.
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) Comment: 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.
EPA Response: 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) Comment: EPA should issue an
interpretive rule clarifying that zinc
phosphating operations are outside the
scope of the F019 listing.
EPA Response: 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) Comment: Automobile assembly
facilities outside of Michigan would like
to take advantage of the precedent set by
this expedited delisting project to delist
F019 generated by similar operations in
other states and regions.
EPA Response: The Agency believes
that the expedited delisting procedures
and requirements set forth in this
proposal are appropriate for similar
automotive assembly facilities outside
the State of Michigan, subject to the
discretion of the regulatory agency (state
or region).
(4) Comment: Alternatives to
landfilling like recycling should be
allowed within the petition process.
EPA Response: The Agency does not
delist wastes which are recycled
because the model used to estimate risk
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:22 Apr 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
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) Comment: Analytical methods
should be specified in the pre-approved
common sampling plan instead of
requiring each participant to submit a
site-specific list of methods.
EPA Response: Allowing the
petitioner to choose an analytical
method which meets the data quality
objectives specific to the delisting
petition provides flexibility. Data
quality objectives will vary depending
on the allowable 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) Comment: Detection limits should
not be required prior to sampling since
they cannot be adequately predicted
without a way to estimate matrix effects.
EPA Response: Although matrix
effects cannot be assessed in advance of
laboratory analysis, a laboratory should
be able to provide estimated detection
levels and reporting levels which are
lower than, or at least equal to, the
allowable delisting level for each
constituent.
(7) Comment: Since the process
generating the sludge is extremely
stable, verification sampling should be
conducted on an annual, instead of
quarterly, basis. The requirement that
any process change 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.
EPA Response: Verification data
submitted in conjunction with past
delistings of this waste have shown
significant variation on a quarterly basis
over longer periods of time. Annual
sampling would not detect such
variations. Once enough verification
data are collected to support a statistical
analysis, a change in the frequency of
verification sampling and/or sampling
parameters may be considered.
(8) Comment: The final Federal
Register should make it clear that
assembly plants that manufacture light
trucks are also eligible for the project.
EPA Response: Today’s notice
specifically defines eligible facilities as
inclusive of manufacturers of light
trucks.
(9) Comment: The table of maximum
allowable levels in the March 7, 2002
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
proposed rule contains errors in the
columns for vinyl chloride.
EPA Response: The error was caused
by a missing space or tab in the table.
The maximum allowable concentrations
proposed for 2,000 cubic yards of waste
should have been 115 mg/kg total and
0.00234 mg/L TCLP.
V. Final Rule Granting These Petitions
A. What Decision Is EPA Finalizing?
Today the EPA is finalizing an
exclusion to conditionally delist an
annual volume of 2,000 cubic yards of
wastewater treatment plant sludge
generated at DTP from conversion
coating on aluminum.
On March 7, 2002, EPA proposed to
exclude or delist this wastewater
treatment sludge from the list of
hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31 and
accepted public comment on the
proposed rule (67 FR 10341). EPA
considered all comments received, and
we believe that this waste should be
excluded from hazardous waste control.
B. What Are the Terms of This
Exclusion?
DTP must dispose of the waste in a
lined subtitle D landfill which is
permitted, licensed, or registered by a
state to manage industrial solid waste.
DTP must obtain and analyze on a
quarterly basis a representative sample
of the waste in accordance with the
waste analysis plan. DTP must verify
that the concentrations of the
constituents of concern do not exceed
the allowable levels set forth in this
exclusion. The list of constituents for
verification is a subset of those initially
tested for and is based on the
occurrence of constituents at the
majority of facilities participating in the
expedited process to delist F019 and the
concentrations detected relative to the
allowable levels.
This exclusion applies only to a
maximum annual volume of 2,000 cubic
yards and is effective only if all
conditions contained in this rule are
satisfied.
C. When Is the Delisting Effective?
This rule is effective April 25, 2005.
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).
E:\FR\FM\25APR1.SGM
25APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78 / Monday, April 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
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. If a participating facility transports
the petitioned waste to or manages the
waste in any state with delisting
authorization, it must obtain a delisting
from that state before it can manage the
waste as nonhazardous in the state.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is
not of general applicability and
therefore is not a regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This
rule does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it
applies to a particular facility only.
Because this rule is of particular
applicability relating to a particular
facility, it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or
to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:22 Apr 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
rule will affect only a particular facility,
it will not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as specified in
section 203 of UMRA.
Because this rule will affect only a
particular facility, this final rule does
not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule. Similarly, because this rule
will affect only a particular facility, this
final rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule.
This rule also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe
the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The
basis for this belief is that the Agency
used the DRAS program, which
considers health and safety risks to
infants and children, to calculate the
maximum allowable concentrations for
this rule.
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is
not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
This rule does not involve technical
standards; thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not
apply.
As required by section 3 of Executive
Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ (61
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
21157
FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this rule, EPA has taken the necessary
steps to eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,
and provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report which includes a
copy of the rule to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. Section 804
exempts from section 801 the following
types of rules (1) rules of particular
applicability; (2) rules relating to agency
management or personnel; and (3) rules
of agency organization, procedure, or
practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency
parties 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not
required to submit a rule report
regarding today’s action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular
applicability.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous
waste, Recycling, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f).
Dated: April 14, 2005.
Bruce Sypniewski,
Acting 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:
I
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
I
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:
I
E:\FR\FM\25APR1.SGM
25APR1
21158
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78 / Monday, April 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22
TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
Facility
Address
*
*
Ford Motor Company, Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:22 Apr 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
Waste description
*
*
*
*
*
Dearborn, Michigan ............ Wastewater treatment plant sludge, F019, that is generated by Ford
Motor Company at the Dearborn Truck Asembly Plant 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 April 25, 2005.
1. Delisting Levels: (A) The concentrations in a TCLP extract of the
waste measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels
(mg/L): antimony—0.7; arsenic—0.3; barium—100; cadmium—0.5;
chromium—5; lead—5; nickel—90; selenium—1; thallium—0.3;
zinc—900; p-cresol—11; di-n-octyl phthlate—0.11; formaldehyde—
80; and pentachlorophenol—0.009. (B) The total concentration
measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/
kg): mercury—9; and formaldehyde—700.
2. Quarterly Verification Testing: To verify that the waste does not exceed the specified delisting levels, Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant
must collect and analyze one representative sample of the waste
on a quarterly basis.
3. Changes in Operating Conditions: Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant
must notify the EPA in writing if the manufacturing process, the
chemicals used in the manufacturing process, the treatment process, or the chemicals used in the treatment process change significantly. Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant 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: Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant [Redln Off] 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. Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant must compile, summarize and maintain on site for a minimum of five years
records of operating conditions and analytical data. Dearborn Truck
Assembly Plant 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, Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant 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 Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25APR1.SGM
25APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78 / Monday, April 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
21159
TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
(c) If the Regional Administrator determines that the reported information does require Agency action, the Regional Administrator will notify Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant 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 Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant with an opportunity to present information as to why
the proposed Agency action is not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant shall have 30 days
from the date of the Regional Administrator’s notice to present the
information.
(d) If after 30 days the Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant 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 (µg/L): antimony—6; arsenic—5; barium—2,000; cadmium—5; chromium—
100; lead—15; nickel—800; selenium—50; thallium—2; tin—20,000;
zinc—11,000; p-Cresol—200; Di-n-octyl phthlate—1.3; Formaldehyde—1,400; and Pentachlorophenol—0.15.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
property insurance agent or broker
serving the eligible community, or from
the NFIP at: (800) 638–6620.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael M. Grimm, Mitigation Division,
500 C Street, SW.; Room 412,
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2878.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–8189 Filed 4–22–05; 8:45 am]
44 CFR Part 64
[Docket No. FEMA–7776]
List of Communities Eligible for the
Sale of Flood Insurance
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate,
Department of Homeland Security.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This rule identifies
communities participating in the
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) and suspended from the NFIP.
These communities have applied to the
program and have agreed to enact
certain floodplain management
measures. The communities’
participation in the program authorizes
the sale of flood insurance to owners of
property located in the communities
listed.
Effective Dates: The dates listed
under the column headed Effective Date
of Eligibility.
ADDRESSES: Flood insurance policies for
property located in the communities
listed can be obtained from any licensed
DATES:
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:22 Apr 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
The NFIP
enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not
otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and
administer local floodplain management
measures aimed at protecting lives and
new construction from future flooding.
Since the communities on the attached
list have recently entered the NFIP,
subsidized flood insurance is now
available for property in the community.
In addition, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency has identified the
special flood hazard areas in some of
these communities by publishing a
Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) or
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The
date of the flood map, if one has been
published, is indicated in the fourth
column of the table. In the communities
listed where a flood map has been
published, Section 202 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 4016(a), requires
the purchase of flood insurance as a
condition of Federal or federally related
financial assistance for acquisition or
construction of buildings in the special
flood hazard areas shown on the map.
The Administrator finds that delayed
effective dates would be contrary to the
public interest and that notice and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)
are impracticable and unnecessary.
National Environmental Policy Act.
This rule is categorically excluded from
the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Considerations. No
environmental impact assessment has
been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities in accordance with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U. S. C. 601
et seq., because the rule creates no
additional burden, but lists those
communities eligible for the sale of
flood insurance.
Regulatory Classification. This final
rule is not a significant regulatory action
under the criteria of section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review,
58 FR 51735.
Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule
does not involve any collection of
information for purposes of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism.
This rule involves no policies that have
federalism implications under Executive
Order 12612, Federalism, October 26,
1987, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 252.
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice
Reform. This rule meets the applicable
standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12778, October 25, 1991, 56 FR
55195, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 309.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
E:\FR\FM\25APR1.SGM
25APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 78 (Monday, April 25, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21153-21159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-8189]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[R5-MIECOS-01; SW-FRL-7902-9]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ``the Agency'' or ``we'' in this preamble) is
granting a petition to exclude (or ``delist'') wastewater treatment
plant sludge from conversion coating on aluminum generated by the Ford
Motor Company Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant (DTP) in Dearborn, Michigan
from the list of hazardous wastes.
Today's action conditionally excludes the petitioned waste from the
requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of in a lined
subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a
State to manage industrial solid waste. The exclusion was proposed on
March 7, 2002 as part of an expedited process to evaluate this waste
under a pilot project developed with the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ). The rule also imposes testing conditions
for waste generated in the future to ensure that this waste continues
to qualify for delisting.
DATES: This rule is effective on April 25, 2005.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. R5-MIECOS-01. All documents in the docket are listed in the index.
Publicly available docket materials are available in hard copy at the
U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604. This Docket
Facility is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. The public may copy material from the
regulatory docket at $0.15 per page. Contact Judy Kleiman for
appointments at the address above, by email at kleiman.judy@epa.gov or
by calling (312) 886-1482.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning
this document, contact Judy Kleiman, Waste, Pesticides, and Toxics
Division, (Mail Code: DW-8J), U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd.,
Chicago, IL 60604; telephone number: (312) 886-1482; fax number: (312)
353-4788; e-mail address: kleiman.judy@epa.gov.
[[Page 21154]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Background
A. What is a delisting petition?
B. What regulations allow a waste to be delisted?
C. What waste did DTP petition to delist?
II. The Expedited Process for Delisting
A. Why was the expedited process developed for this waste?
B. What is the expedited process to delist F019?
III. EPA's Evaluation of This Petition
A. What information was submitted in support of this petition?
B. How did EPA evaluate the information submitted?
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Expedited Process
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. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition?
A delisting petition is a request from a generator to exclude waste
from the list of hazardous wastes under RCRA regulations. In a
delisting petition, the petitioner must show that waste generated at a
particular facility does not meet any of the criteria for which EPA
listed the waste as set forth in title 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(40 CFR) 261.11 and the background document for the waste. In addition,
a petitioner must demonstrate that the waste does not exhibit any of
the hazardous waste characteristics (that is, ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity, and toxicity) and must present sufficient information for
us to decide whether factors other than those for which the waste was
listed warrant retaining it as a hazardous waste. (See 40 CFR 260.22,
42 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 from the lists of hazardous wastes on a ``generator specific''
basis.
C. What Waste Did DTP Petition To Delist?
DTP petitioned to exclude wastewater treatment sludge resulting
from a zinc phosphating conversion coating process on truck bodies
which have aluminum components. When treated, the wastewater from the
conversion coating on aluminum results in a listed waste, F019. The
wastewater from the phosphating process entering the wastewater
treatment plant combines with wastewaters from other operations at the
plant including cleaning and rinsing operations, electrocoating
processes, vehicle leak testing, and floor scrubbing. Wastewaters
include alkaline cleaners, surfactants, organic detergents, rinse
conditioners from cleaning operations and overflows and rinse water
from electrocoating. All sludge from the treatment of this wastewater
is regulated as RCRA hazardous waste F019.
II. The Expedited Process for Delisting
A. Why Was the Expedited Process Developed for This Waste?
Automobile manufacturers are adding aluminum components to
automobile and light truck bodies. When aluminum is conversion coated
in a zinc phosphating process in automobile assembly plants, the
resulting wastewater treatment sludge must be managed as EPA hazardous
waste F019. F019 wastes generated at other auto assembly plants using
the same zinc phosphating and wastewater treatment processes have been
shown to be nonhazardous.
This similarity of manufacturing processes and the resultant wastes
provides an opportunity for the automobile industry to be more
efficient in submitting delisting petitions and for EPA to be more
efficient in evaluating them. Efficiency may be gained and time saved
by using a standardized approach for gathering, submitting and
evaluating data. Therefore, EPA, in conjunction with MDEQ, developed a
pilot project to expedite the delisting process. This approach to
making delisting determinations for this group of facilities is
efficient while still being consistent with current laws and
regulations and protective of human health and the environment.
By removing regulatory controls under RCRA, EPA is facilitating the
use of aluminum in cars. EPA believes that incorporating aluminum in
cars will be advantageous to the environment since lighter cars are
capable of achieving better fuel economy.
B. What Is the Expedited Process To Delist F019?
The expedited process to delist F019 is an approach developed
through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with MDEQ for gathering and
evaluating data in support of multiple petitions from automobile
assembly plants. The expedited delisting process is applicable to
wastes generated by automobile and light truck assembly plants in the
State of Michigan which use a similar manufacturing process and
generate similar F019 waste.
Based on available historical data and other information, the
expedited process identified 70 constituents which might be of concern
in the waste and provides that the F019 sludge generated by automobile
assembly plants may be delisted if the levels of the 70 constituents do
not exceed the allowable levels established for each constituent in
this rulemaking. The maximum annual quantity of waste generated by any
single facility which may be covered by an expedited delisting is 3,000
cubic yards. Delisting levels were also proposed for smaller quantities
of 1,000 and 2,000 cubic yards.
III. EPA's Evaluation of This Petition
A. What Information Was Submitted in Support of This Petition?
DTP submitted certification that its process was the same as the
process described in the MOU between Region 5 and MDEQ. See 67 FR
10341, March 7, 2002. The facility also asserted 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 exclusion demonstration, Ford Dearborn collected six
samples representing waste generated over a seven week period.\1\ Each
sample was analyzed for: (1) Total analyses of 69 \2\ constituents of
concern;
[[Page 21155]]
(2) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), SW-846 Method
1311, analyses of 69 constituents of concern; (3) oil and grease; and
(4) total constituent analyses for sulfide and cyanide. In addition,
the pH of each sample was measured and a determination was made that
the waste was not ignitable, corrosive or reactive (see 40 CFR 261.21-
261.23). With the exception of the minor change noted here, all
sampling and analyses were done in accordance with the sampling and
analysis plan which is an appendix to the MOU and is available in the
docket for this rule. Instead of sampling directly from six different
roll-off boxes which would have required multiple sampling events or
long-term storage of full roll-off boxes, DTP collected representative
amounts of sludge each week from June 8 through July 27, 2004. The
sludge for each week was placed in a separate drum. On July 27, 2004,
composite and grab samples were collected from each of the six drums.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Because the plant was shut down from July 4-11, 2004, the
time necessary to collect 6 samples was extended to 7 weeks.
\2\ The expedited delisting project originally required analysis
of 70 constituents. However, the analysis of acrylamide required
extreme methods to achieve a detection level at the level of
concern. Since no acrylamide was detected in any sample analyzed by
the original facilities participating in the expedited delisting
project, the Agency decided it would not be appropriate to require
analysis for acrylamide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maximum values of constituents detected in any sample of the
waste and in a TCLP extract of that waste are summarized in the
following table. The data submitted included the appropriate QA/QC
information validated by a third party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In the proposed rule, the allowable level for TCLP PCP was
set at 0.004 mg/L for participants generating 2,000 cubic yards
annually. This value was based on child-dermal exposure to
contaminated groundwater, but the model was found to overestimate
this exposure by using an inappropriate exposure duration. This
error in the software has since been corrected. Using the correct
exposure factors, the limiting pathway is adult-dermal exposure to
contaminated groundwater with an allowable level of 0.009 mg/L.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum observed concentration Maximum allowable
--------------------------------- concentration
Constituent detected -------------------------------- GW (ug/L)
Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L) Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
formaldehyde.................. 13 0.64 700 80 1,400
n-butyl alcohol............... < 26 R < 0.5 R NA 230 4,000
toluene....................... < 0.5 0.0021 NA 60 1,000
-------------------------------
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate... 1.9 < 0.005 NA 0.09 1.5
p-cresol...................... < 1.5 0.042 NA 11 200
di-n-octylphthalate........... 1.9 0.003 NA 0.11 1.3
pentachlorophenol............. < 1.5 0.0045 3,000 \3\ 0.009 0.15
-------------------------------
Metals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
arsenic....................... < 50 < 0.02 8,000 0.3 5
barium........................ 1700 1.02 NA 100 2,000
chromium...................... 49 < 0.05 NA 5 100
cobalt........................ 1.7 0.03 NA 70 2,000
lead.......................... 36 < 0.1 NA 5 15
nickel........................ 2610 38.9 NA 90 800
silver........................ 288 < 0.05 NA 5 200
tin........................... 292 < 0.5 NA 700 20,000
vanadium...................... 226 0.02 NA 70 300
zinc.......................... 14,200 27.4 NA 900 11,000
-------------------------------
Miscellaneous
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
corrosivity (pH)..............
2 < x < 12.5 NA
Oil & grease.................. 8020
NA NA
sulfide....................... 36
See 40 CFR 261.23 NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-- The numerical value is not useable.
<-- Not detected at the specified concentration.
NA--not applicable.
These levels represent the highest constituent concentration found in any one sample and do not necessarily
represent the specific levels found in one sample.
B. How Did EPA Evaluate the Information Submitted?
EPA compared the analytical results submitted by DTP to the maximum
allowable levels calculated by the DRAS and set forth in the proposed
rule (67 FR 10341, March 7, 2002). The maximum allowable levels for
constituents detected in the waste or a TCLP extract of the waste are
summarized in the table above, along with the observed levels. The
table also includes the maximum allowable levels in groundwater at a
potential receptor well, as evaluated by the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS). These levels are the more conservative of either the
Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) or the health-
based value calculated by DRAS based on the target cancer risk level of
10-\6\. For arsenic, the target cancer risk was set at
10-\4\ in consideration of the MCL and the potential for
natural occurrence. The maximum allowable groundwater concentration and
delisting level for arsenic correspond to a drinking water
concentration less than one half the current MCL of 10 [mu]g/L.
EPA also used the DRAS program to estimate the aggregate cancer
risk and hazard index for constituents detected in the waste. The
aggregate cancer risk is the cumulative total of all individual
constituent cancer risks. The hazard
[[Page 21156]]
index is a similar cumulative total of non-cancer effects. The target
aggregate cancer risk is 1x10-\5\ and the target hazard
index is one. The wastewater treatment plant sludge at DTP met both of
these criteria.
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) Comment: 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.
EPA Response: 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) Comment: EPA should issue an interpretive rule clarifying that
zinc phosphating operations are outside the scope of the F019 listing.
EPA Response: 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) Comment: Automobile assembly facilities outside of Michigan
would like to take advantage of the precedent set by this expedited
delisting project to delist F019 generated by similar operations in
other states and regions.
EPA Response: The Agency believes that the expedited delisting
procedures and requirements set forth in this proposal are appropriate
for similar automotive assembly facilities outside the State of
Michigan, subject to the discretion of the regulatory agency (state or
region).
(4) Comment: Alternatives to landfilling like recycling should be
allowed within the petition process.
EPA Response: The 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) Comment: Analytical methods should be specified in the pre-
approved common sampling plan instead of requiring each participant to
submit a site-specific list of methods.
EPA Response: Allowing the petitioner to choose an analytical
method which meets the data quality objectives specific to the
delisting petition provides flexibility. Data quality objectives will
vary depending on the allowable 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) Comment: Detection limits should not be required prior to
sampling since they cannot be adequately predicted without a way to
estimate matrix effects.
EPA Response: Although matrix effects cannot be assessed in advance
of laboratory analysis, a laboratory should be able to provide
estimated detection levels and reporting levels which are lower than,
or at least equal to, the allowable delisting level for each
constituent.
(7) Comment: Since the process generating the sludge is extremely
stable, verification sampling should be conducted on an annual, instead
of quarterly, basis. The requirement that any process change 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.
EPA Response: Verification data submitted in conjunction with past
delistings of this waste have shown significant variation on a
quarterly basis over longer periods of time. Annual sampling would not
detect such variations. Once enough verification data are collected to
support a statistical analysis, a change in the frequency of
verification sampling and/or sampling parameters may be considered.
(8) Comment: The final Federal Register should make it clear that
assembly plants that manufacture light trucks are also eligible for the
project.
EPA Response: Today's notice specifically defines eligible
facilities as inclusive of manufacturers of light trucks.
(9) Comment: The table of maximum allowable levels in the March 7,
2002 proposed rule contains errors in the columns for vinyl chloride.
EPA Response: The error was caused by a missing space or tab in the
table. The maximum allowable concentrations proposed for 2,000 cubic
yards of waste should have been 115 mg/kg total and 0.00234 mg/L TCLP.
V. Final Rule Granting These Petitions
A. What Decision Is EPA Finalizing?
Today the EPA is finalizing an exclusion to conditionally delist an
annual volume of 2,000 cubic yards of wastewater treatment plant sludge
generated at DTP from conversion coating on aluminum.
On March 7, 2002, EPA proposed to exclude or delist this wastewater
treatment sludge from the list of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31 and
accepted public comment on the proposed rule (67 FR 10341). EPA
considered all comments received, and we believe that this waste should
be excluded from hazardous waste control.
B. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion?
DTP must dispose of the waste in a lined subtitle D landfill which
is permitted, licensed, or registered by a state to manage industrial
solid waste. DTP must obtain and analyze on a quarterly basis a
representative sample of the waste in accordance with the waste
analysis plan. DTP must verify that the concentrations of the
constituents of concern do not exceed the allowable levels set forth in
this exclusion. The list of constituents for verification is a subset
of those initially tested for and is based on the occurrence of
constituents at the majority of facilities participating in the
expedited process to delist F019 and the concentrations detected
relative to the allowable levels.
This exclusion applies only to a maximum annual volume of 2,000
cubic yards and is effective only if all conditions contained in this
rule are satisfied.
C. When Is the Delisting Effective?
This rule is effective April 25, 2005. 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).
[[Page 21157]]
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. If a participating facility
transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any state
with delisting authorization, it must obtain a delisting from that
state before it can manage the waste as nonhazardous in the state.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability
and therefore is not a regulatory action subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it applies to a
particular facility only. Because this rule is of particular
applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to
the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because
this rule will affect only a particular facility, it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as specified in
section 203 of UMRA.
Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this
final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule. Similarly, because this rule will affect only a particular
facility, this final rule does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045,
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency
does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. The basis for this belief is that the Agency used the DRAS
program, which considers health and safety risks to infants and
children, to calculate the maximum allowable concentrations for this
rule.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice
Reform,'' (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has
taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report which includes a copy of the rule to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of
rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801
because this is a rule of particular applicability.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: April 14, 2005.
Bruce Sypniewski,
Acting Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division.
0
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
0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
0
2. In Table 1 of appendix IX of part 261 the following wastestreams are
added in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
[[Page 21158]]
Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 1.--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Ford Motor Company, Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant.......... Dearborn, Michigan....................... Wastewater treatment plant sludge, F019, that is
generated by Ford Motor Company at the Dearborn
Truck Asembly Plant 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 April 25, 2005.
1. Delisting Levels: (A) The concentrations in a
TCLP extract of the waste measured in any
sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/
L): antimony--0.7; arsenic--0.3; barium--100;
cadmium--0.5; chromium--5; lead--5; nickel--90;
selenium--1; thallium--0.3; zinc--900; p-
cresol--11; di-n-octyl phthlate--0.11;
formaldehyde--80; and pentachlorophenol--0.009.
(B) The total concentration measured in any
sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/
kg): mercury--9; and formaldehyde--700.
2. Quarterly Verification Testing: To verify
that the waste does not exceed the specified
delisting levels, Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant
must collect and analyze one representative
sample of the waste on a quarterly basis.
3. Changes in Operating Conditions: Dearborn
Truck Assembly Plant must notify the EPA in
writing if the manufacturing process, the
chemicals used in the manufacturing process,
the treatment process, or the chemicals used in
the treatment process change significantly.
Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant 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: Dearborn Truck Assembly
Plant [Redln Off] 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. Dearborn
Truck Assembly Plant must compile, summarize
and maintain on site for a minimum of five
years records of operating conditions and
analytical data. Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant
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, Dearborn Truck
Assembly Plant 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 Dearborn
Truck Assembly Plant 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.
[[Page 21159]]
(c) If the Regional Administrator determines
that the reported information does require
Agency action, the Regional Administrator will
notify Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant 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 Dearborn Truck Assembly
Plant with an opportunity to present
information as to why the proposed Agency
action is not necessary or to suggest an
alternative action. Dearborn Truck Assembly
Plant shall have 30 days from the date of the
Regional Administrator's notice to present the
information.
(d) If after 30 days the Dearborn Truck Assembly
Plant presents no further information, the
Regional Administrator will issue a final
written determination describing the Agency
actions that are necessary to protect human
health or the environment. Any required action
described in the Regional Administrator's
determination shall become effective
immediately, unless the Regional Administrator
provides otherwise.
(e) Maximum Allowable Groundwater Concentrations
([mu]g/L): antimony--6; arsenic--5; barium--
2,000; cadmium--5; chromium--100; lead--15;
nickel--800; selenium--50; thallium--2; tin--
20,000; zinc--11,000; p-Cresol--200; Di-n-octyl
phthlate--1.3; Formaldehyde--1,400; and
Pentachlorophenol--0.15.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-8189 Filed 4-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
