Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Proposed Exclusion, 21165-21170 [05-8190]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78 / Monday, April 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
time. If we do not receive adverse
comments, no further activity is
planned. For further information, please
see the direct final action.
Dated: March 29, 2005.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 05–8187 Filed 4–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[R5–GMJA–05; SW–FRL–7903–4]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste Proposed Exclusion
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ‘‘the Agency’’
or ‘‘we’’ in this preamble) is proposing
to grant a petition to exclude or ‘‘delist’’
wastewater treatment sludge from
conversion coating on aluminum
generated by the General Motors
Corporation (GM) Janesville Truck
Assembly Plant (JTAP) in Janesville,
Wisconsin from the requirements of
hazardous waste regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). This proposed exclusion, if
finalized, conditionally excludes the
petitioned waste from the requirements
of hazardous waste regulations under
RCRA.
This petition was evaluated in a
manner similar to the expedited process
developed as a special project in
conjunction with the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) for delisting similar wastes
generated by a similar manufacturing
process. Based on an evaluation of
waste-specific information provided by
GM, we have tentatively concluded that
the petitioned waste from JTAP is
nonhazardous with respect to the
original listing criteria and that there are
no other factors which would cause the
waste to be hazardous. This exclusion,
if finalized, would be valid only when
the sludge is disposed of in a Subtitle
D landfill which is permitted, licensed,
or registered by a State to manage
industrial solid waste.
DATES: We will accept public comments
on this proposed rule until June 9, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Please send two copies of
your comments to Judy Kleiman, Waste
Management Branch (DW–8J),
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:22 Apr 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
21165
60604. We will stamp comments
postmarked after the close of the
comment period as ‘‘late.’’ These ‘‘late’’
comments may not be considered in
formulating a final decision. Any person
may request a hearing on this proposed
decision by filing a request with
Margaret Guerriero, Director, Waste,
Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois
60604. Your request for a hearing must
reach EPA by May 10, 2005. The request
must contain the information prescribed
in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(40 CFR) 260.20(d).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
RCRA regulatory docket for this
proposed rule, number R5–GMJA–04, is
located at 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. The public may copy
material from the regulatory docket at
$0.15 per page. For further technical
information concerning this document
or for appointments to view the docket,
contact Judy Kleiman at the address
above, by calling 312–886–1482 or by email at kleiman.judy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
information in this section is organized
as follows:
EPA listed the waste as set forth in 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 United States Code (U.S.C.) 6921(f)
and the background document for a
listed waste.)
A generator remains obligated under
RCRA to confirm that its waste remains
nonhazardous based on the hazardous
waste characteristics even if EPA has
‘‘delisted’’ the waste and to ensure that
future generated waste meets the
conditions set.
I. Background
A. What is a delisting petition?
B. What regulations allow a waste to be
delisted?
II. GM’s Petition to Delist Waste from
Janesville Truck Assembly Plant
A. How is the petitioned waste generated?
B. What is the process for delisting F019
from zinc phosphating operations at
automobile and light truck assembly
plants?
C. What information did GM submit in
support of its petition?
III. EPA’s Evaluation of This Petition
A. How did EPA evaluate the information
submitted?
B. What did EPA conclude about this
waste?
IV. Proposal to Delist Waste from Janesville
Truck Assembly Plant
A. What is EPA proposing?
B. What are the terms of this exclusion?
C. What are the maximum allowable
concentrations of hazardous constituents
in the waste?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
II. GM’s Petition To Delist Waste From
Janesville Truck Assembly Plant
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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
B. What Regulations Allow a Waste To
Be Delisted?
Under 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22, and 42
U.S.C. 6921(f), a facility may petition
the EPA to remove its waste 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.
A. How Is the Petitioned Wasted
Generated?
GM is petitioning to exclude
wastewater treatment sludge resulting
from a conversion coating process on
truck bodies which have aluminum
components. The truck bodies are
immersed in a zinc phosphate bath
which applies a conversion coating on
the surface of the metal. The rinses and
overflows from the conversion coating
process comingle with wastewaters from
cleaning and rinsing operations which
may include alkaline cleaners,
surfactants, organic detergents and rinse
conditioners. After the zinc phosphating
bath, the truck bodies are subjected to
an electrocoating process and spray
painting. Overflows and rinse water
from the electrocoating process and
from the paint booths combine with the
wastewater from the conversion coating
before entering the wastewater
treatment plant. When treated, the
wastewater from the conversion coating
on aluminum causes all the sludge
generated from these wastewaters to be
a listed waste, F019.
In the wastewater treatment plant,
large particles are screened out and the
wastewater is sent to various thickeners
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
21166
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78 / Monday, April 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
and clarifier tanks where water and
solids are further separated. The pH of
the wastewater may be adjusted and
flocculents and coagulants may be
added to facilitate the thickening
process. The solids which settle in the
thickeners and clarifiers are dewatered
in a filter press and the resultant F019
filter cake drops into a roll off box for
disposal.
The zinc phosphating process used
today does not contain hexavalent
chromium or cyanide for which F019
was originally listed, but trivalent
chromium, nickel, and zinc may be
present in the wastewater and in the
sludge. Other hazardous constituents
such as organic solvents, formaldehyde
or additional metals could also be in the
waste stream. Before a waste can be
delisted, the petitioner must
demonstrate that there are no hazardous
constituents in the sludge from other
operations in the plant at levels of
concern and that there are no other
factors that might cause the waste to be
hazardous. GM believes that its sludge
does not contain the constituents for
which F019 was listed and that there are
no other constituents or factors that
would cause the waste to remain
hazardous.
B. What Is the Process for Delisting F019
From Zinc Phospating Operations At
Automobile and Light Truck Assembly
Plants?
The zinc phosphating process used by
GM at JTAP is substantially similar to
the process used at most automobile and
light truck assembly plants in
conversion coating steel and aluminum.
A number of automobile and light truck
assembly plants have been granted
hazardous waste exclusions as a result
of a special expedited delisting project
established in a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between EPA
Region 5 and MDEQ (67 FR 10341,
March 7, 2002 and 68 FR 44652, July 30,
2003). These facilities were able to take
advantage of a common sampling
approach and expedited rulemaking
procedure mainly due to the similarity
of the wastes and processes generating
the waste. GM certified that the process
generating the filter cake at JTAP is
consistent with the process described in
the MOU for expedited delistings.
Using available historical data and
other information, the expedited process
identified 70 constituents which might
be of concern in the F019 waste
generated at automobile and light truck
assembly plants, and a Sampling and
Analysis Plan was developed
specifically for testing this waste. EPA
agreed to allow GM to use the same
Sampling and Analysis Plan and the
same list of constituents of concern to
demonstrate that the levels of
constituents in the waste at JTAP are
below the levels of concern that could
pose a threat to human health or the
environment when the waste is
disposed in a nonhazardous landfill.
C. What Information Did GM Submit in
Support of Its Petition?
To support its exclusion
demonstration, GM collected six
samples representing waste generated at
JTAP over six weeks. All sampling was
done in accordance with the Sampling
and Analysis Plan developed for the
expedited delisting project but modified
Maximum concentration observed
Constituent
Total
(mg/kg)
TCLP
(mg/L)
to eliminate multiple sampling events or
long term storage of full roll-off boxes.
A representative amount of sludge was
collected each week for six weeks
starting with the week of March 15,
2004 and continuing through the week
of April 19, 2004. The sludge for each
week was placed in a separate 55 gallon
drum, and on April 27, 2004, composite
and grab samples were collected from
all drums. In accordance with the
Sampling and Analysis Plan, each
sample was analyzed for: (1) Total
analyses of 69 constituents of concern; 1
(2) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP), Method 1311 in Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods (SW–846)
for the volatile and semivolatile
constituents of concern; (3) oil and
grease, SW–846 Method 9071B; (4)
leachable metals using the Extraction
Procedure for Oily Wastes (OWEP), SW–
846 Method 1330A; (5) total constituent
analysis for sulfide, SW–846 Method
9034; and (6) total constituent analysis
for cyanide, SW–846 Method 9012A. In
addition, the pH of each sample was
measured using SW–846 Method 9045C
and a determination was made that the
waste was not ignitable, corrosive or
reactive (see 40 CFR 261.21–261.23).
The data submitted included the
appropriate quality assurance/quality
control information and was validated
by an independent third party as
required in the Sampling and Analysis
Plan. The maximum values of
constituents detected in any sample of
the wastewater treatment sludge or in a
TCLP extract of that sludge are
summarized in the table below.
Maximum allowable delisting
level
(3,000 cubic yards)
Total
(mg/kg)
TCLP
(mg/L)
Maximum
allowable
groundwater
concentration
(mg/L)
Volatile Organic Compounds
acetone ................................................................................
formaldehyde .......................................................................
n-butyl alcohol ......................................................................
<10
2.4
25
0.33
0.12
0.2
NA
540
NA
1,500
43 2
171
34
0.950
3.7
NA
890,000
NA
NA
8.5
0.15
34
0.55
0.190
0.0032
0.750
0.012
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
p-cresol ................................................................................
bis (2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate ..................................................
2,4-dimethylphenol ...............................................................
naphthalene .........................................................................
1 The expedited delisting project originally called
for the analysis of 70 constituents. However, the
analysis of acrylamide required extreme methods to
achieve a detection level at the level of concern.
Despite the use of single ion monitoring, no
acrylamide was detected in any sample analyzed by
any of the original facilities participating in the
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:22 Apr 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
2.6
1.7
<3.0
<1.5
0.28
<0.005
0.007
0.0046
expedited delisting project. Consequently, the
Agency decided it would not be appropriate to
require analysis for acrylamide.
2 The allowable TCLP concentrations from the
groundwater inhalation exposure pathway have
been changed to account for the cumulative
groundwater inhalation exposure from all
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
residential inhalation exposures (shower, bathroom,
and whole-house). Previous calculations of
allowable levels were based on only the most
conservative of these three. This change in the
calculation results in a more conservative allowable
limit for TCLP concentration of formaldehyde.
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
21167
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78 / Monday, April 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Maximum concentration observed
Constituent
Total
(mg/kg)
TCLP
(mg/L)
Maximum allowable delisting
level
(3,000 cubic yards)
Total
(mg/kg)
TCLP
(mg/L)
Maximum
allowable
groundwater
concentration
(mg/L)
Metals
arsenic ..................................................................................
barium ..................................................................................
cadmium ...............................................................................
chromium .............................................................................
cobalt ....................................................................................
lead ......................................................................................
nickel ....................................................................................
tin .........................................................................................
zinc .......................................................................................
<50
210
1.6
75
4.3
214
1,180
<100
7,320
0.045
<.35
<0.023
<0.12
<0.029
<0.15
7.99
2.02
0.36
8,000
NA
22,000
3,200
14,000
500,000
NA
NA
NA
0.22
100
0.36
3.7
18
5
68
540
670
0.005
2
0.005
0.100
0.750
0.015
0.750
23
11
<0.05
NA
8.6
0.2
Miscellaneous
cyanide .................................................................................
0.7
corrosivity (pH) .....................................................................
7.8–8.19
2.0 <ph <12.5
NA
<Not detected at the specified concentration.
NA not applicable.
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram.
mg/L milligrams per liter.
These levels represent the highest constituent concentration found in any one sample and do not necessarily represent the specific levels
found in a single sample.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of This Petition
A. How Did EPA Evaluate the
Information Submitted?
In developing this proposal, we
considered the original listing criteria
and evaluated additional factors
required by the Hazardous and Solid
Wastes Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
See section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(2)–(4).
We evaluated the petitioned waste
against the listing criteria and factors
cited in 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2) and (3).
These factors include: (1) Whether the
waste is considered acutely toxic; (2) the
toxicity of the constituents; (3) the
concentration of the constituents in the
waste; (4) the tendency of the hazardous
constituents to migrate and to
bioaccumulate; (5) persistence of these
constituents in the environment once
released from the waste; (6) plausible
and specific types of management of the
petitioned waste; (7) the quantity of
waste produced; and (8) waste
variability.
EPA identified plausible exposure
routes (ground water, surface water, air)
for hazardous constituents released from
the waste in an improperly managed
Subtitle D landfill. To evaluate the
waste, we used the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software program (DRAS), a
Windows based software tool, to
estimate the potential release of
hazardous constituents from the waste
and to predict the risk associated with
those releases. For a detailed
description of the DRAS program and
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:22 Apr 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
revisions see: 65 FR 58015, September
27, 2000; 65 FR 75637, December 4,
2000; 65 FR 75897, December 5, 2000;
and 67 FR 10341, March 7, 2002.
B. What Did EPA Conclude About This
Waste?
EPA compared the analytical results
submitted by JTAP to the maximum
allowable levels calculated by the DRAS
for an annual volume of 3,000 cubic
yards. The maximum allowable levels
for constituents detected in the waste or
the waste leachate are summarized in
the table above. All constituents
compared favorably to the allowable
levels.
The table also includes the maximum
allowable levels in groundwater at a
potential receptor well, as evaluated by
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 or the target
hazard quotient of one. 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 0.010 mg/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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
constituent cancer risks. The hazard
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 sludge at JTAP met both of
these criteria.
IV. Proposal To Delist Waste From
Janesville Truck Assembly
A. What Is EPA Proposing?
Today the EPA is proposing to
conditionally exclude or delist 3,000
cubic yards annually of wastewater
treatment sludge generated at JTAP from
conversion coating on aluminum.
B. What Are the Terms of This
Exclusion?
GM must dispose of the JTAP waste
in a lined Subtitle D landfill which is
permitted, licensed, or registered by a
state to manage industrial waste. This
exclusion applies only to a maximum
annual volume of 3,000 cubic yards and
is effective only if all conditions
contained in this rule are satisfied. GM
must verify on a quarterly basis that the
concentrations of the constituents of
concern in the JTAP sludge do not
exceed the allowable levels set forth in
this exclusion. The list of constituents
for verification is based on the
concentration and frequency of
occurrence of constituents of concern in
GM’s JTAP sludge and in wastes
generated by the majority of facilities
participating in the expedited process to
delist F019.
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
21168
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78 / Monday, April 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
C. What Are the Maximum Allowable
Concentrations of Hazardous
Constituents in the Waste?
Concentrations of the following
constituents measured in the TCLP (or
OWEP, where appropriate) extract of the
waste must not exceed the following
levels (mg/L): antimony—0.49;
arsenic—0.22; cadmium—0.36;
chromium—3.7; lead—5; nickel—68;
selenium—1; thallium—0.21; tin—540;
zinc—670; p-cresol—8.5; and
formaldehyde—43. The total
concentrations in the waste of the
following constituents must not exceed
the following levels (mg/kg):
formaldehyde—540; chromium—3,200;
and mercury—7.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order. It
has been determined that this rule is not
a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
the terms of Executive Order 12866 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 and does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, it is not
subject to the regulatory flexibility
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
This rule is not subject to sections
202, 203, 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.
Therefore, EPA has determined that this
rule does not contain a Federal mandate
that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector in any one year.
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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous
waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f).
Dated: April 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:
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 wastestream is 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
*
Address
*
*
General Motors Corporation Janesville Truck Assembly.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:22 Apr 22, 2005
Waste description
*
*
Janesville, Wisconsin .....................
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
*
*
Wastewater treatment sludge, F019, that is generated at the General
Motors Corporation (GM) Janesville Truck Assembly Plant (JTAP)
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 (insert final
publication date).
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78 / Monday, April 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
21169
TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
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—0.49; arsenic—0.22; cadmium—0.36; chromium—3.7; lead—5; nickel—68; seleium—1; thallium—0.21; tin—
540; zinc—670; p-cresol—8.5; and formaldehyde—43;. (B) The
total concentrations measured in any sample may not exceed the
following levels (mg/kg): chromium—3,200; mercury—7; and formaldehyde—540.
2. Quarterly Verification Testing: To verify that the waste does not exceed the specified delisting levels, GM must collect and analyze
one representative sample of JTAP’s sludge on a quarterly basis.
3. Changes in Operating Conditions: GM 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 at JTAP significantly change. GM must handle wastes generated at JTAP after the process change as hazardous until it has demonstrated that the waste continues to meet
the delisting levels and that no new hazardous constituents listed in
appendix VIII of part 261 have been introduced and GM has received written approval from EPA.
4. Data Submittals: GM must submit the data obtained through
verification testing at JTAP or as required by other conditions of this
rule to EPA Region 5, Waste Management Branch (DW–8J), 77 W.
Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604. The quarterly verification data
and certification of proper disposal must be submitted annually
upon the anniversary of the effective date of this exclusion. GM
must compile, summarize, and maintain at JTAP records of operating conditions and analytical data for a minimum of five years.
GM must make these records available for inspection. All data must
be accompanied by a signed copy of the certification statement in
40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).
5. Reopener Language—(a) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted
waste, GM possesses or is otherwise made aware of any data (including but not limited to leachate data or groundwater monitoring
data) relevant to the delisted waste at JTAP 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 GM must report such data in writing to the Regional
Administrator within 10 days of first possessing or being made
aware of that data.
(b) Based on the information described in paragraph (a) and any
other information received from any source, the Regional Administrator will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires Agency action to protect human health
or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to
protect human health and the environment.
(c) If the Regional Administrator determines that the reported information does require Agency action, the Regional Administrator will notify GM in writing of the actions the Regional Administrator believes
are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The
notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing GM with an opportunity to present information as to
why the proposed Agency action is not necessary or to suggest an
alternative action. GM shall have 30 days from the date of the Regional Administrator’s notice to present the information.
(d) If after 30 days GM presents no further information, the Regional
Administrator will issue a final written determination describing the
Agency actions that are necessary to protect human health or the
environment. Any required action described in the Regional Administrator’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless
the Regional Administrator provides otherwise.
(e) Maximum Allowable Groundwater Concentrations (mg/L):; antimony—0.006; arsenic—0.005; cadmium—0.005; chromium—0.1;
lead—0.015; nickel—0.750; selenium—0.050; tin—23; zinc—11; pCresol—0.190; and formaldehyde—0.950.
*
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:22 Apr 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
*
PO 00000
*
Frm 00007
*
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
*
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
*
25APP1
21170
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78 / Monday, April 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
[FR Doc. 05–8190 Filed 4–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 050408096–5096–01; I.D.
033105A]
RIN 0648–AS69
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish
Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Gulf
Reef Fish Limited Access System
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed
rule to implement Amendment 24 to the
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the
Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of
Mexico (Amendment 24) prepared by
the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council (Council). This proposed rule
would establish a limited access system
for the commercial reef fish fishery in
the Gulf of Mexico by capping
participation at the current level. The
intended effect of this proposed rule is
to provide economic and social stability
in the fishery by preventing speculative
entry into the fishery.
DATES: Written comments on the
proposed rule must be received no later
than 5 p.m., eastern time, on June 9,
2005.
You may submit comments
on the proposed rule by any of the
following methods:
• E-mail: 0648–
AS69.Proposed@noaa.gov. Include in
the subject line the following document
identifier: 0648–AS69.
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Peter Hood, Southeast
Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th
Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
• Fax: 727–824–5308; Attention: Peter
Hood.
Copies of Amendment 24, which
includes a Regulatory Impact Review
(RIR), Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analyses (IRFA), and an Environmental
Assessment, may be obtained from the
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council, The Commons at Rivergate,
3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Suite
ADDRESSES:
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:22 Apr 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
1000, Tampa, FL 33619–2266;
telephone: 813–228–2815; fax: 813–
225–7015; e-mail:
gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org. Copies of
Amendment 24 can also be downloaded
from the Council’s website at
www.gulfcouncil.org.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter Hood, telephone: 727–551–5728,
fax: 727–824–5308, e-mail:
peter.hood@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef
fish fishery in the exclusive economic
zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico is
managed under the FMP. The FMP was
prepared by the Council and is
implemented under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations
at 50 CFR part 622.
Background
Prior to 1992, the commercial reef fish
fishery in the EEZ of the Gulf of Mexico
operated under open access. In 1992,
due to concerns about increasing levels
of participation in the fishery, a 3-year
moratorium on the issuance of new
commercial vessel permits for Gulf reef
fish was implemented under
Amendment 4 to the FMP (April 8,
1992; 57 FR 11914). The moratorium
was designed to stabilize the level of
participation in the fishery and to allow
for evaluation and development of a
more comprehensive controlled access
system for the commercial reef fish
fishery. The moratorium was
subsequently extended through 1995
(Amendment 9) (August 2, 1994; 59 FR
39301); through 2000 (Amendment 11)
(December 15, 1995; 60 FR 64350); and
through 2005, or until replaced by a
more comprehensive access/effort
control program (Amendment 17) (July
3, 2000; 65 FR 41016).
The effects of the existing permit
moratorium have been to prevent
increases in effort, reduce the number of
permittees in the reef fish fishery, and
help stabilize the economic performance
of current participants. Under the
moratoria, the number of commercial
vessel reef fish permits has declined
from 1,718 in 1993 to 1,129 in 2004.
Current commercial reef fish fishery
participants have demonstrated the
capability of harvesting the applicable
quotas well in advance of the end of the
fishing season, resulting in early
closures of the fishery. Allowing the
fishery to revert to open access would
result in an increased number of
participants in the fishery, most likely
negating any reductions in effort that
have been achieved as a result of the
current moratorium. An increase in
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
participants would lead to even earlier
fishery closures and would have an
adverse impact on the economic
performance of current participants.
Increased participation would also
compound the complexity of any future
consideration by the Council to develop
a more comprehensive controlled access
or effort limitation system for this
fishery. For these reasons, the Council
has concluded that a limited access
system to continue restrictions on
participation levels in the fishery is
appropriate.
Limited Access System
Amendment 24 would establish a
limited access system for the
commercial fishery for Gulf reef fish by
capping participation at the current
level. Under the proposed limited
access system, an owner of a vessel with
a valid commercial vessel permit for
Gulf reef fish on the date that
Amendment 24 is approved (assuming
approval) would be issued the
applicable permits under the limited
access system. Commercial vessel
permits for Gulf reef fish would become
limited access permits upon their
renewal. Other than the changes in the
terminology, i.e., ‘‘limited access’’
versus ‘‘moratorium,’’ there would be no
changes to the current procedures for
application, qualification, issuance,
renewal, or transferability of these
permits.
Classification
At this time, NMFS has not
determined that Amendment 24, which
this proposed rule would implement, is
consistent with the national standards
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other
applicable laws. In making that
determination, NMFS will take into
account the data, views, and comments
received during the comment period on
Amendment 24 ending June 6, 2005,
and the comment period on this
proposed rule ending June 9, 2005.
This proposed rule has been
determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared an IRFA as required
by section 603 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. The IRFA describes the
economic impact this proposed rule, if
adopted, would have on small entities.
A description of the action, why it is
being considered, and the legal basis for
this action are contained in this
Classification section and in the
SUMMARY of this proposed rule. A
summary of the analysis follows.
This proposed rule would establish a
limited access system for the
commercial reef fish fishery in the Gulf
of Mexico. The purpose of the proposed
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 78 (Monday, April 25, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21165-21170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-8190]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[R5-GMJA-05; SW-FRL-7903-4]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste Proposed Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ``the Agency'' or ``we'' in this preamble) is
proposing to grant a petition to exclude or ``delist'' wastewater
treatment sludge from conversion coating on aluminum generated by the
General Motors Corporation (GM) Janesville Truck Assembly Plant (JTAP)
in Janesville, Wisconsin from the requirements of hazardous waste
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
This proposed exclusion, if finalized, conditionally excludes the
petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations
under RCRA.
This petition was evaluated in a manner similar to the expedited
process developed as a special project in conjunction with the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for delisting similar wastes
generated by a similar manufacturing process. Based on an evaluation of
waste-specific information provided by GM, we have tentatively
concluded that the petitioned waste from JTAP is nonhazardous with
respect to the original listing criteria and that there are no other
factors which would cause the waste to be hazardous. This exclusion, if
finalized, would be valid only when the sludge is disposed of in a
Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a
State to manage industrial solid waste.
DATES: We will accept public comments on this proposed rule until June
9, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Please send two copies of your comments to Judy Kleiman,
Waste Management Branch (DW-8J), Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W.
Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604. We will stamp comments
postmarked after the close of the comment period as ``late.'' These
``late'' comments may not be considered in formulating a final
decision. Any person may request a hearing on this proposed decision by
filing a request with Margaret Guerriero, Director, Waste, Pesticides
and Toxics Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson
Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604. Your request for a hearing must reach
EPA by May 10, 2005. The request must contain the information
prescribed in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) 260.20(d).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RCRA regulatory docket for this
proposed rule, number R5-GMJA-04, is located at 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. The
public may copy material from the regulatory docket at $0.15 per page.
For further technical information concerning this document or for
appointments to view the docket, contact Judy Kleiman at the address
above, by calling 312-886-1482 or by e-mail at kleiman.judy@epa.gov.
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. GM's Petition to Delist Waste from Janesville Truck Assembly
Plant
A. How is the petitioned waste generated?
B. What is the process for delisting F019 from zinc phosphating
operations at automobile and light truck assembly plants?
C. What information did GM submit in support of its petition?
III. EPA's Evaluation of This Petition
A. How did EPA evaluate the information submitted?
B. What did EPA conclude about this waste?
IV. Proposal to Delist Waste from Janesville Truck Assembly Plant
A. What is EPA proposing?
B. What are the terms of this exclusion?
C. What are the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the waste?
V. 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 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 United States Code (U.S.C.)
6921(f) and the background document for a listed waste.)
A generator remains obligated under RCRA to confirm that its waste
remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics even
if EPA has ``delisted'' the waste and to ensure that future generated
waste meets 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), a facility may
petition the EPA to remove its waste 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.
II. GM's Petition To Delist Waste From Janesville Truck Assembly Plant
A. How Is the Petitioned Wasted Generated?
GM is petitioning to exclude wastewater treatment sludge resulting
from a conversion coating process on truck bodies which have aluminum
components. The truck bodies are immersed in a zinc phosphate bath
which applies a conversion coating on the surface of the metal. The
rinses and overflows from the conversion coating process comingle with
wastewaters from cleaning and rinsing operations which may include
alkaline cleaners, surfactants, organic detergents and rinse
conditioners. After the zinc phosphating bath, the truck bodies are
subjected to an electrocoating process and spray painting. Overflows
and rinse water from the electrocoating process and from the paint
booths combine with the wastewater from the conversion coating before
entering the wastewater treatment plant. When treated, the wastewater
from the conversion coating on aluminum causes all the sludge generated
from these wastewaters to be a listed waste, F019.
In the wastewater treatment plant, large particles are screened out
and the wastewater is sent to various thickeners
[[Page 21166]]
and clarifier tanks where water and solids are further separated. The
pH of the wastewater may be adjusted and flocculents and coagulants may
be added to facilitate the thickening process. The solids which settle
in the thickeners and clarifiers are dewatered in a filter press and
the resultant F019 filter cake drops into a roll off box for disposal.
The zinc phosphating process used today does not contain hexavalent
chromium or cyanide for which F019 was originally listed, but trivalent
chromium, nickel, and zinc may be present in the wastewater and in the
sludge. Other hazardous constituents such as organic solvents,
formaldehyde or additional metals could also be in the waste stream.
Before a waste can be delisted, the petitioner must demonstrate that
there are no hazardous constituents in the sludge from other operations
in the plant at levels of concern and that there are no other factors
that might cause the waste to be hazardous. GM believes that its sludge
does not contain the constituents for which F019 was listed and that
there are no other constituents or factors that would cause the waste
to remain hazardous.
B. What Is the Process for Delisting F019 From Zinc Phospating
Operations At Automobile and Light Truck Assembly Plants?
The zinc phosphating process used by GM at JTAP is substantially
similar to the process used at most automobile and light truck assembly
plants in conversion coating steel and aluminum. A number of automobile
and light truck assembly plants have been granted hazardous waste
exclusions as a result of a special expedited delisting project
established in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA Region 5
and MDEQ (67 FR 10341, March 7, 2002 and 68 FR 44652, July 30, 2003).
These facilities were able to take advantage of a common sampling
approach and expedited rulemaking procedure mainly due to the
similarity of the wastes and processes generating the waste. GM
certified that the process generating the filter cake at JTAP is
consistent with the process described in the MOU for expedited
delistings.
Using available historical data and other information, the
expedited process identified 70 constituents which might be of concern
in the F019 waste generated at automobile and light truck assembly
plants, and a Sampling and Analysis Plan was developed specifically for
testing this waste. EPA agreed to allow GM to use the same Sampling and
Analysis Plan and the same list of constituents of concern to
demonstrate that the levels of constituents in the waste at JTAP are
below the levels of concern that could pose a threat to human health or
the environment when the waste is disposed in a nonhazardous landfill.
C. What Information Did GM Submit in Support of Its Petition?
To support its exclusion demonstration, GM collected six samples
representing waste generated at JTAP over six weeks. All sampling was
done in accordance with the Sampling and Analysis Plan developed for
the expedited delisting project but modified to eliminate multiple
sampling events or long term storage of full roll-off boxes. A
representative amount of sludge was collected each week for six weeks
starting with the week of March 15, 2004 and continuing through the
week of April 19, 2004. The sludge for each week was placed in a
separate 55 gallon drum, and on April 27, 2004, composite and grab
samples were collected from all drums. In accordance with the Sampling
and Analysis Plan, each sample was analyzed for: (1) Total analyses of
69 constituents of concern; \1\ (2) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP), Method 1311 in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846) for the volatile and
semivolatile constituents of concern; (3) oil and grease, SW-846 Method
9071B; (4) leachable metals using the Extraction Procedure for Oily
Wastes (OWEP), SW-846 Method 1330A; (5) total constituent analysis for
sulfide, SW-846 Method 9034; and (6) total constituent analysis for
cyanide, SW-846 Method 9012A. In addition, the pH of each sample was
measured using SW-846 Method 9045C and a determination was made that
the waste was not ignitable, corrosive or reactive (see 40 CFR 261.21-
261.23). The data submitted included the appropriate quality assurance/
quality control information and was validated by an independent third
party as required in the Sampling and Analysis Plan. The maximum values
of constituents detected in any sample of the wastewater treatment
sludge or in a TCLP extract of that sludge are summarized in the table
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The expedited delisting project originally called for the
analysis of 70 constituents. However, the analysis of acrylamide
required extreme methods to achieve a detection level at the level
of concern. Despite the use of single ion monitoring, no acrylamide
was detected in any sample analyzed by any of the original
facilities participating in the expedited delisting project.
Consequently, the Agency decided it would not be appropriate to
require analysis for acrylamide.
\2\ The allowable TCLP concentrations from the groundwater
inhalation exposure pathway have been changed to account for the
cumulative groundwater inhalation exposure from all residential
inhalation exposures (shower, bathroom, and whole-house). Previous
calculations of allowable levels were based on only the most
conservative of these three. This change in the calculation results
in a more conservative allowable limit for TCLP concentration of
formaldehyde.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum concentration observed Maximum allowable delisting Maximum
-------------------------------- level (3,000 cubic yards) allowable
Constituent -------------------------------- groundwater
Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L) concentration
Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L) (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
acetone......................... <10 0.33 NA 1,500 34
formaldehyde.................... 2.4 0.12 540 43 \2\ 0.950
n-butyl alcohol................. 25 0.2 NA 171 3.7
---------------------------------
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
p-cresol........................ 2.6 0.28 NA 8.5 0.190
bis (2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate.... 1.7 <0.005 890,000 0.15 0.0032
2,4-dimethylphenol.............. <3.0 0.007 NA 34 0.750
naphthalene..................... <1.5 0.0046 NA 0.55 0.012
---------------------------------
[[Page 21167]]
Metals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
arsenic......................... <50 0.045 8,000 0.22 0.005
barium.......................... 210 <.35 NA 100 2
cadmium......................... 1.6 <0.023 22,000 0.36 0.005
chromium........................ 75 <0.12 3,200 3.7 0.100
cobalt.......................... 4.3 <0.029 14,000 18 0.750
lead............................ 214 <0.15 500,000 5 0.015
nickel.......................... 1,180 7.99 NA 68 0.750
tin............................. <100 2.02 NA 540 23
zinc............................ 7,320 0.36 NA 670 11
---------------------------------
Miscellaneous
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cyanide......................... 0.7 <0.05 NA 8.6 0.2
---------------------------------
corrosivity (pH)................ 7.8-8.19
2.0 -\6\ or the
target hazard quotient of one. 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 0.010 mg/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 index is a similar cumulative
total of non-cancer effects. The target aggregate cancer risk is 1 x
10-\5\ and the target hazard index is one. The wastewater
treatment sludge at JTAP met both of these criteria.
IV. Proposal To Delist Waste From Janesville Truck Assembly
A. What Is EPA Proposing?
Today the EPA is proposing to conditionally exclude or delist 3,000
cubic yards annually of wastewater treatment sludge generated at JTAP
from conversion coating on aluminum.
B. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion?
GM must dispose of the JTAP waste in a lined Subtitle D landfill
which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a state to manage
industrial waste. This exclusion applies only to a maximum annual
volume of 3,000 cubic yards and is effective only if all conditions
contained in this rule are satisfied. GM must verify on a quarterly
basis that the concentrations of the constituents of concern in the
JTAP sludge do not exceed the allowable levels set forth in this
exclusion. The list of constituents for verification is based on the
concentration and frequency of occurrence of constituents of concern in
GM's JTAP sludge and in wastes generated by the majority of facilities
participating in the expedited process to delist F019.
[[Page 21168]]
C. What Are the Maximum Allowable Concentrations of Hazardous
Constituents in the Waste?
Concentrations of the following constituents measured in the TCLP
(or OWEP, where appropriate) extract of the waste must not exceed the
following levels (mg/L): antimony--0.49; arsenic--0.22; cadmium--0.36;
chromium--3.7; lead--5; nickel--68; selenium--1; thallium--0.21; tin--
540; zinc--670; p-cresol--8.5; and formaldehyde--43. The total
concentrations in the waste of the following constituents must not
exceed the following levels (mg/kg): formaldehyde--540; chromium--
3,200; and mercury--7.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB
review and the requirements of the Executive Order. It has been
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 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 and does not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities, it is not subject to the
regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
This rule is not subject to sections 202, 203, 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. Therefore, EPA has
determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one
year.
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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: April 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:
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 wastestream
is added in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
General Motors Corporation Janesville, Wastewater treatment
Janesville Truck Assembly. Wisconsin. sludge, F019, that
is generated at the
General Motors
Corporation (GM)
Janesville Truck
Assembly Plant
(JTAP) 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 (insert final
publication date).
[[Page 21169]]
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--0.49;
arsenic--0.22;
cadmium--0.36;
chromium--3.7; lead--
5; nickel--68;
seleium--1;
thallium--0.21; tin--
540; zinc--670; p-
cresol--8.5; and
formaldehyde--43;.
(B) The total
concentrations
measured in any
sample may not
exceed the following
levels (mg/kg):
chromium--3,200;
mercury--7; and
formaldehyde--540.
2. Quarterly
Verification
Testing: To verify
that the waste does
not exceed the
specified delisting
levels, GM must
collect and analyze
one representative
sample of JTAP's
sludge on a
quarterly basis.
3. Changes in
Operating
Conditions: GM 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 at
JTAP significantly
change. GM must
handle wastes
generated at JTAP
after the process
change as hazardous
until it has
demonstrated that
the waste continues
to meet the
delisting levels and
that no new
hazardous
constituents listed
in appendix VIII of
part 261 have been
introduced and GM
has received written
approval from EPA.
4. Data Submittals:
GM must submit the
data obtained
through verification
testing at JTAP or
as required by other
conditions of this
rule to EPA Region
5, Waste Management
Branch (DW-8J), 77
W. Jackson Blvd.,
Chicago, IL 60604.
The quarterly
verification data
and certification of
proper disposal must
be submitted
annually upon the
anniversary of the
effective date of
this exclusion. GM
must compile,
summarize, and
maintain at JTAP
records of operating
conditions and
analytical data for
a minimum of five
years. GM must make
these records
available for
inspection. All data
must be accompanied
by a signed copy of
the certification
statement in 40 CFR
260.22(i)(12).
5. Reopener Language--
(a) If, anytime
after disposal of
the delisted waste,
GM possesses or is
otherwise made aware
of any data
(including but not
limited to leachate
data or groundwater
monitoring data)
relevant to the
delisted waste at
JTAP 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
GM must report such
data in writing to
the Regional
Administrator within
10 days of first
possessing or being
made aware of that
data.
(b) Based on the
information
described in
paragraph (a) and
any other
information received
from any source, the
Regional
Administrator will
make a preliminary
determination as to
whether the reported
information requires
Agency action to
protect human health
or the environment.
Further action may
include suspending,
or revoking the
exclusion, or other
appropriate response
necessary to protect
human health and the
environment.
(c) If the Regional
Administrator
determines that the
reported information
does require Agency
action, the Regional
Administrator will
notify GM in writing
of the actions the
Regional
Administrator
believes are
necessary to protect
human health and the
environment. The
notice shall include
a statement of the
proposed action and
a statement
providing GM with an
opportunity to
present information
as to why the
proposed Agency
action is not
necessary or to
suggest an
alternative action.
GM shall have 30
days from the date
of the Regional
Administrator's
notice to present
the information.
(d) If after 30 days
GM presents no
further information,
the Regional
Administrator will
issue a final
written
determination
describing the
Agency actions that
are necessary to
protect human health
or the environment.
Any required action
described in the
Regional
Administrator's
determination shall
become effective
immediately, unless
the Regional
Administrator
provides otherwise.
(e) Maximum Allowable
Groundwater
Concentrations (mg/
L):; antimony--
0.006; arsenic--
0.005; cadmium--
0.005; chromium--
0.1; lead--0.015;
nickel--0.750;
selenium--0.050;
tin--23; zinc--11; p-
Cresol--0.190; and
formaldehyde--0.950.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 21170]]
[FR Doc. 05-8190 Filed 4-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
