Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Final Amendment, 51638-51643 [05-17359]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
51638
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Commodity
Sheep, kidney .......
Sheep, liver ...........
Sheep, meat .........
Sheep, meat byproducts, except
kidney and liver
Sorghum, grain,
forage ................
Sorghum, grain,
stover ................
Sorghum, grain,
grain ..................
Soybean, forage ...
Soybean, hay ........
Soybean, seed ......
*
*
*
Parts per million
0.2
0.1
0.04
0.04
1.0
4.0
0.3
5.0
8.0
0.2
*
*
Tomato, paste .......
Vegetable, brassica, head and
stem, subgroup
5A ......................
Vegetable, foliage
of legume, except soybean,
subgroup 7A ......
Vegetable, fruiting
group 8, (except
tabasco pepper)
Vegetable, leaf
petioles, subgroup 4B ...........
Vegetable, legume,
edible podded,
subgroup 6A ......
Vegetable, legume,
pea and bean,
dried shelled,
(except soybean)
subgroup 6C .....
Vegetable, root,
(except sugar
beet) subgroup
1B ......................
Vegetables, tuberous and corm,
subgroup 1C .....
0.3
0.6
15.0
0.1
0.1
0.5
indirect or inadvertent combined
residues (free and bound) of the
herbicide S-metolachlor [S-2-chloro-N(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy1-methylethyl)acetamide], its Renantiomer, and its metabolites,
determined as the derivatives, 2-[2ethyl-6-methylphenyl)amino]-1propanol and 4-(2-ethyl-6methylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-5-methyl-3morpholinone, each expressed as the
parent compound, in or on the
following raw agricultural commodities:
Commodity
Parts per million
Barley, grain .........
Barley, hay ............
Barley, straw .........
Buckwheat, grain ..
Nongrass, animal
feed (forage,
fodder, straw,
hay) group 18 ....
Oat, forage ............
Oat, grain ..............
Oat, hay ................
Oat, straw .............
Rice, grain ............
Rice, straw ............
Rye, forage ...........
Rye, grain .............
Rye, straw .............
Wheat, forage .......
Wheat, grain .........
Wheat, hay ...........
Wheat, straw .........
0.1
1.0
0.5
0.1
1.0
0.5
0.1
1.0
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
1.0
0.5
[FR Doc. 05–17367 Filed 8–30–05; 8:45 am]
0.1
0.3
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
0.2
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) Tolerances with regional
registration as defined in § 180.1(n) are
established for the combined residues
(free and bound) of the herbicide Smetolachlor [S-2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1methylethyl)acetamide], its Renantiomer, and its metabolites,
determined as the derivatives, 2-[2ethyl-6-methylphenyl)amino]-1propanol and 4-(2-ethyl-6methylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-5-methyl-3morpholinone, each expressed as the
parent compound, in or on the
following raw agricultural commodities:
[FRL–7961–3]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Amendment
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA, also the Agency or we in
this preamble) today is granting a
petition to modify an exclusion (or
delisting) from the lists of hazardous
waste previously granted to BMW
Manufacturing Co., LLC (BMW) in
Greer, South Carolina. This action
responds to a petition for amendment
submitted by BMW to eliminate the
total concentration limits in its
Commodity
Parts per million
wastewater treatment sludge covered by
Pepper, tabasco ...
0.5 its current conditional exclusion.
EPA received public comments on the
(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues.
November 26, 2004, Proposed Rule (69
Tolerances are established for the
FR 68851) and took into account all
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:14 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
public comments before granting this
final rule. The Agency re-evaluated the
specific information initially provided
by the petitioner in its original request
and delistings granted to other
automobile manufactures for their F019
waste. This final decision eliminates the
total concentration limits for barium,
cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, and
cyanide from its conditionally excluded
wastewater treatment sludge from the
requirements of the hazardous waste
regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The waste will still be subject to local,
State, and Federal regulations for
nonhazardous solid wastes.
DATES: Effective August 31, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The RCRA regulatory
docket for this final rule is located at the
EPA Library, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, and
is available for viewing from 9:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. The public
may copy material from any regulatory
docket at no cost for the first 100 pages,
and at a cost of $0.15 per page for
additional copies. For copying at the
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control, please see
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general and technical information
concerning this final rule, please contact
Kris Lippert, RCRA Enforcement and
Compliance Branch (Mail Code 4WD–
RCRA), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta
Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562-8605,
or call, toll free (800) 241–1754, and
leave a message, with your name and
phone number, for Ms. Lippert to return
your call. Questions may also be emailed to Ms. Lippert at
lippert.kristin@epa.gov. You may also
contact Cindy Carter, Appalachia III
District, South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control
(SCDHEC), 975C North Church Street,
Spartanburg, South Carolina. If you
wish to copy documents at SCDHEC,
please contact Ms. Carter for copying
procedures and costs.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Petition for
Amendment?
C. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion?
D. When Is the Final Amendment
Effective?
E. How Does This Action Affect States?
E:\FR\FM\31AUR1.SGM
31AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
II. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition?
B. What Regulations Allow Hazardous
Waste Generators to Delist Waste?
C. What Information Must the Generator
Supply?
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste Data
A. What Waste Is the Subject of This
amendment?
B. How Did EPA Evaluate This Petition?
IV. Public Comments on the Proposed
Amendment
A. Who Submitted Comments on the
Proposed Rule?
B. Comments and Responses From EPA
V. Administrative Assessments
remain a solid waste under RCRA. As
such, the waste must be handled in
accordance with all applicable Federal,
State, and local solid waste management
regulations. Pursuant to RCRA section
3007, EPA may also sample and analyze
the waste to determine if delisting
conditions are met. EPA believes that
BMW’s petitioned waste will not harm
human health and the environment
when disposed in a nonhazardous waste
landfill if the delisting levels are met as
granted in the May 2, 2001, Final Rule
and amended in this exclusion.
I. Overview Information
C. What Are the Terms of This
Exclusion?
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?
After evaluating BMW’s petition and
public comments received in response
to the November 26, 2004, Proposed
Rule (69 FR 68851), we are amending
the current BMW’s delisting to
eliminate the total concentration limits
for barium, cadmium, chromium, lead,
nickel, and cyanide from its
conditionally excluded wastewater
treatment sludge from the requirements
of the hazardous waste regulations
under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). The waste will
still be subject to local, State, and
Federal regulations for nonhazardous
solid wastes.
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Petition
for Amendment?
EPA believes that the information
provided by BMW provides a reasonable
basis to eliminate all total concentration
limits. We, therefore, grant BMW an
amendment to its current delisting for
an elimination of all total concentration
limits on its delisted wastewater
treatment sludge. EPA believes that this
amendment to eliminate all
concentration limits will not harm
human health and the environment
when disposed in a nonhazardous waste
landfill, if the required delisting levels
are met. EPA grants the elimination of
all total concentration limits, based on
descriptions of waste management and
waste history, evaluation of the results
of waste sample analysis, on the
requirement that BMW’s petitioned
waste must meet the required delisting
level of all the constituents of concern
concentration limits as state in the May
2, 2001, Final Rule before disposal, and
that no substantial public comments
were received during the public
comment period. The petitioned waste
will not be subject to regulation under
40 CFR parts 262 through 268 and the
permitting standards of 40 CFR part 270.
Although management of the waste
covered by this petition is relieved from
Subtitle C jurisdiction, the waste will
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:14 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
The following summarizes the
maximum allowable constituent
concentrations (delisting levels) for
BMW’s waste. We calculated these
delisting levels for each constituent that
is part of BMW’s current delisting based
on the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS) EPA Composite Model
for Leachate Migration with
Transformation Products (EPACMTP)
model, which grants BMW an exclusion
from the lists of hazardous wastes in
subpart D of 40 CFR part 261 for its
petitioned waste when disposed in a
Subtitle D landfill. BMW must meet all
of the following delisting conditions in
order for this exclusion to be valid:
delisting levels in mg/l in the TCLP
extract of the waste of 100.0 for Barium,
1.0 for Cadmium, 5.0 for Chromium,
33.6 for Cyanide, 5.0 for Lead, and 70.3
for Nickel.
This amended exclusion applies to
the waste described in the petition only
if the requirements described above as
well as in Table 1 of Appendix IX to
part 261 of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations are satisfied. The
maximum annual volume of the
wastewater treatment sludge is 2850
cubic yards.
D. When Is the Final Amendment
Effective?
This rule is effective August 31, 2005.
HSWA amended section 3010 of RCRA
to allow rules to become effective in less
than six months when the regulated
community does not need the six-month
period to come into compliance. That is
the case here because this rule reduces,
rather than increases, the existing
requirements for persons generating
hazardous wastes. For these same
reasons, this rule can become effective
immediately (that is, upon publication
in the Federal Register) under the
Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
51639
E. How Does This Action Affect States?
Because EPA is issuing today’s
exclusion under the Federal RCRA
delisting program, only States subject to
Federal RCRA delisting provisions
would be directly affected. This would
exclude two categories of States: States
having a dual system that includes
Federal RCRA requirements and their
own requirements, and States who have
received EPA’s authorization to make
their own delisting decisions. We
describe these two situations below.
We allow states to impose their own
non-RCRA 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, or that prohibits a Federally
issued exclusion from taking effect in
the State until the State approves the
exclusion through a separate State
administrative action. Because a dual
system (that is, both Federal and State
programs) may regulate a petitioner’s
waste, we urge petitioners to contact the
applicable State regulatory authorities
or agencies to establish the status of
their waste under that State’s program.
We have also authorized some States
to administer a delisting program in
place of the Federal program; that is, to
make State delisting decisions.
Therefore, this exclusion does not
necessarily apply within those
authorized States. If BMW transports the
petitioned waste to, or manages the
waste in, any State with delisting
authorization, BMW must obtain
delisting approval from that State before
it can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in that State.
In order for this amendment to be
effective in an authorized State, that
State must adopt this amendment
through its State administrative process.
II. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition?
A delisting petition is a formal request
from a generator to EPA or another
agency with jurisdiction to exclude from
the lists of hazardous waste regulated by
RCRA, a waste that the generator
believes should not be considered
hazardous.
B. What Regulations Allow Hazardous
Waste Generators To Delist Waste?
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, a
generator may petition EPA to remove
its waste from hazardous waste control
by excluding it from the lists of
hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR
261.31, 261.32 and 261.33. Specifically,
40 CFR 260.20 allows any person to
E:\FR\FM\31AUR1.SGM
31AUR1
51640
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
petition the Administrator to modify or
revoke any provision of parts 260
through 266, 268 and 273 of Title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR
260.22 provides generators the
opportunity to petition the
Administrator to exclude a waste on a
‘‘generator-specific’’ basis from the
hazardous waste lists. A generator can
petition EPA for an amendment to an
existing exclusion under these same
provisions of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
C. What Information Must the Generator
Supply?
A petitioner must provide sufficient
information to allow EPA to determine
that the waste to be excluded does not
meet any of the criteria under which the
waste was listed as a hazardous waste.
In addition, the Administrator must
determine that the waste is not
hazardous for any other reason.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste Data
A. What Waste Is the Subject of This
Amendment?
BMW in Greer, South Carolina,
manufactures automobiles for domestic
consumption and for shipment to
foreign markets. The assembly plant
operations include body welding,
conversion coating, painting, final
assembly, and shipment. The
manufacturing process that causes F019
to be generated is conversion coating,
when applied to automobile bodies that
contain aluminum. Conversion coating
takes place in the plant’s paint shop and
treats the metal surface of each
automobile body before painting to
provide resistance to corrosion and to
prepare the metal surface for optimum
paint adhesion. Wastewater from all
plant operations is treated at BMW’s
wastewater pretreatment plant which is
located in an area of the paint shop. The
wastewater is treated to meet the
requirements of BMW’s wastewater
pretreatment permit before discharging
the water to the publicly owned
treatment works (POTW). Treatment
results in the formation of insoluble
metal hydroxides and phosphates.
Wastewater treatment sludge is
generated when these metal hydroxides
and phosphates are dewatered in a filter
press. The sludge that exits from the
filter press is classified as F019 when
the automobile bodies contain
aluminum, and the exit from the filter
press will be the point of generation of
F019. BMW was granted its current
Federal delisting exclusion for this F019
wastewater treatment sludge at a
maximum annual volume of 2,850 cubic
yards on May 2, 2001 (66 FR 21877).
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:14 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
A full description of this waste and
the Agency’s evaluation of the original
BMW’s petition are contained in the
‘‘Proposed Rule and Request for
Comments’’ published in the Federal
Register on February 12, 2001 (66 FR
9781). After evaluating public comment
on the proposed rule, we published a
final decision in the Federal Register on
May 2, 2001 (66 FR 21877), to exclude
BMW’s wastewater treatment sludge
derived from the treatment of EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F019 from the list
of hazardous wastes found in 40 CFR
261.31. The hazardous constituents of
concern for which F019 was listed are
hexavalent chromium and cyanide
(complexed). BMW petitioned the EPA
to exclude its F019 waste because BMW
does not use either of these constituents
in the manufacturing process. Therefore,
BMW did not believe that the waste
meets the criteria of the listing. EPA’s
final decision to grant the delisting
exclusion on May 2, 2001, was
conditioned on the following delisting
levels: (1) Delisting levels in mg/l in the
TCLP extract of the waste of 100.0 for
Barium, 1.0 for Cadmium, 5.0 for
Chromium, 33.6 for Cyanide, 5.0 for
Lead, and 70.3 for Nickel; (2) the total
concentration of cyanide (total, not
amenable) in the waste, not the waste
leachate, must not exceed 200 mg/kg; (3)
the total concentrations, in mg/kg, of
metals in the waste, not the waste
leachate, must not exceed 2,000 for
Barium, 500 for Cadmium, 1,000 for
Chromium, 2,000 for Lead, and 20,000
for Nickel. If the waste exceeded any of
the delisting limits, then the waste has
to be managed as hazardous waste.
C. How Did EPA Evaluate This Petition?
In support of its original petition,
BMW submitted: (1) Descriptions of its
manufacturing and wastewater
treatment processes, the generation
point of the petitioned waste, and the
manufacturing steps that will contribute
to its generation; (2) Material Safety
Data Sheets (MSDSs) for materials used
to manufacture automobiles and to treat
wastewater; (3) the minimum and
maximum annual amounts of
wastewater treatment sludge generated
from 1996 through 1999, and an
estimate of the maximum annual
amount expected to be generated in the
future; (4) results of analysis for metals,
cyanide, sulfide, fluoride, and volatile
organic compounds in the currently
generated waste at the BMW plants in
Greer, South Carolina, and Dingolfing,
Germany; (5) results of the analysis of
leachate obtained by means of the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure ((TCLP), SW–846 Method
1311), from these wastes; (6) results of
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the determinations for the hazardous
characteristics of ignitability,
corrosivity, and reactivity, in these
wastes; (7) results of determinations of
dry weight percent, bulk density, and
free liquids in these wastes; and (8)
results of the MEP analysis of the
currently generated waste at the plant in
Greer, South Carolina.
EPA reviewed the allowable total
concentrations in the waste, as
calculated by DRAS for the waste, to
determine if eliminating the total
concentration limits for the constituents
of concern would be still protective to
human health and the environment. The
allowable total concentrations,
according to the DRAS, were all at least
1,000 times greater than the actual
maximum total concentrations found in
the waste. Based on the DRAS results,
EPA grants BMW’s petition for
amendment to eliminate all total
concentration limits.
IV. Public Comments on the Proposed
Amendment
A. Who Submitted Comments on the
Proposed Rule?
EPA received public comments on the
proposed noticed published on
November 26, 2004, from Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers; The
Aluminum Association; BMW
Manufacturing Co., LLC; Donald
Humphrey; and EPA. All commenters
were supportive of the proposal except
Donald Humphrey.
B. Comments and Responses From EPA
Comment: On October 30, 2002, (67
FR 66251), EPA’s Office of Solid Waste
proposed the Methods Innovation Rule
(MIR) to remove from the regulations
unnecessary requirements to use only
SW–846 Methods other than those
considered to be Method Defined
Parameters (MDP). The Agency is no
longer generally requiring the use of
only SW–846 Methods for regulatory
applications other than those involving
MDPs. The general purpose of this rule
is to allow more flexibility when
conducting RCRA-related sampling and
analysis activities.
Response: EPA has revised Table 1:
(2) Verification Testing Requirements:
in Appendix IX of this Final Rule with
appropriate language.
Comment: The Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers, the
Aluminum Association, and BMW
believe the F019 listing itself should be
revised to exclude wastewater treatment
sludges from automotive industry
conversion coating on aluminum when
hexavalent chromium and cyanides are
not used in the process.
E:\FR\FM\31AUR1.SGM
31AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Response: Today’s final rule is sitespecific and waste-specific; it applies
only to BMW’s plant in Greer, South
Carolina, and only to the petitioned
waste. EPA understands the
commenters’ concern, but it is outside
the scope of this delisting.
Comment: Donald Humphrey
disagreed with granting this final rule,
because he feels that BMW must abide
by the rules of RCRA.
Response: On January 16, 1981, as
part of its final and interim final
regulations implementing section 3001
of RCRA, EPA published an amended
list of hazardous wastes from nonspecific and specific sources. This list
has been amended several times, and is
published in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32.
These wastes are listed as hazardous
because they exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous wastes
identified in Subpart C of part 261 (i.e.,
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and
toxicity) or meet the criteria for listing
contained in section 261.11(a)(2) or
(a)(3). Individual waste streams may
vary, however, depending on raw
materials, industrial processes, and
other factors. Thus, while a waste that
is described in these regulations
generally is hazardous, a specific waste
from an individual facility meeting the
listing description may not be. For this
reason, sections 260.20 and 260.22
provide an exclusion procedure,
allowing BMW to demonstrate that its
F019 waste from its specific facility
should not be regulated as a hazardous
waste. BMW has complied with the
requirements of sections 260.20 and
260.22, and therefore, is having its
petition to amend an exclusion (or
delisting) from the lists of hazardous
waste granted.
V. Administrative Assessments
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a rule of general applicability and
therefore is not a ‘‘regulatory action’’
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget. Because this
action is a rule 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, 203, and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because the
rule will affect only one facility, it will
not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as specified in section 203
of UMRA, or communities of Indian
tribal governments, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 6, 2000). For the same reason,
this rule will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule
also is not subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant.
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) 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. 801
et seq. as added by the Small Business
51641
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, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 15, 2005.
Alan Farmer,
Acting Director, Waste Management 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, 6924(y) and 6938.
2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX, Part 261
revise the entry for BMW Manufacturing
Co., LLC to read as follows:
I
Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22
TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
Facility
Address
Waste description
*
*
*
BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC Greer, South Carolina ...
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:14 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
*
*
*
*
Wastewater treatment sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019) that BMW Manufacturing Corporation (BMW) generates by treating wastewater from automobile
assembly plant located on Highway 101 South in Greer, South Carolina. This is a
conditional exclusion for up to 2,850 cubic yards of waste (hereinafter referred to
as ‘‘BMW Sludge’’) that will be generated each year and disposed in a Subtitle D
landfill after August 31, 2005. With prior approval by the EPA, following a public
comment period, BMW may also beneficially reuse the sludge. BMW must demonstrate that the following conditions are met for the exclusion to be valid.
(1) Delisting Levels: All leachable concentrations for these metals and cyanide must
not exceed the following levels (ppm): Barium-100; Cadmium-1; Chromium-5; Cyanide-33.6, Lead-5; and Nickel-70.3. These metal and cyanide concentrations
must be measured in the waste leachate obtained by the method specified in 40
CFR 261.24, except that for cyanide, deionized water must be the leaching medium. Cyanide concentrations in waste or leachate must be measured by the
method specified in 40 CFR 268.40, Note 7.
Frm 00083
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\31AUR1.SGM
31AUR1
51642
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
(2) Annual Verification Testing Requirements: Sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures, must be performed using appropriate methods.
As applicable to the method-defined parameters of concern, analyses requiring
the use of SW–846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11 must be
used without substitution. As applicable, the SW–846 methods might include
Methods 0010, 0011, 0020, 0023A, 0030, 0031, 0040, 0050, 0051, 0060, 0061,
1010A, 1020B, 1110A, 1310B, 1311, 1312, 1320, 1330A, 9010C, 9012B, 9040C,
9045D, 9060A, 9070A, (uses EPA Method 1664, Rev. A), 9071B, and 9095B.
Methods must meet Performance Based Measurement System Criteria in which
the Data Quality Objectives are to demonstrate that representative samples of the
BMW Sludge meet the delisting levels in Condition (1). (A) Annual Verification
Testing: BMW must implement an annual testing program to demonstrate that
constituent concentrations measured in the TCLP extract do not exceed the
delisting levels established in Condition (1).
(3) Waste Holding and Handling: BMW must hold sludge containers utilized for
verification sampling until composite sample results are obtained. If the levels of
constituents measured in the composite samples of BMW Sludge do not exceed
the levels set forth in Condition (1), then the BMW Sludge is non-hazardous and
must be managed in accordance with all applicable solid waste regulations. If constituent levels in a composite sample exceed any of the delisting levels set forth in
Condition (1), the batch of BMW Sludge generated during the time period corresponding to this sample must be managed and disposed of in accordance with
Subtitle C of RCRA.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: BMW must notify EPA in writing when significant changes in the manufacturing or wastewater treatment processes are implemented. EPA will determine whether these changes will result in additional constituents of concern. If so, EPA will notify BMW in writing that the BMW Sludge
must be managed as hazardous waste F019 until BMW has demonstrated that
the wastes meet the delisting levels set forth in Condition (1) and any levels established by EPA for the additional constituents of concern, and BMW has received written approval from EPA. If EPA determines that the changes do not result in additional constituents of concern, EPA will notify BMW, in writing, that
BMW must verify that the BMW Sludge continues to meet Condition (1) delisting
levels.
(5) Data Retention: Records of analytical data from Condition (2) must be compiled,
summarized, and maintained by BMW for a minimum of three years, and must be
furnished upon request by EPA or the State of South Carolina, and made available for inspection. Failure to maintain the required records for the specified time
will be considered by EPA, at its discretion, sufficient basis to revoke the exclusion to the extent directed by EPA. All data must be accompanied by a signed
copy of the certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).
(6) Reopener Language: (A) If, at any time after disposal of the delisted waste,
BMW possesses or is otherwise made aware of any environmental data (including
but not limited to leachate data or groundwater monitoring data) or any other data
relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent identified in the
delisting verification testing is at a level higher than the delisting level allowed by
EPA in granting the petition, BMW must report the data, in writing, to EPA and
South Carolina within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that
data. (B) If the testing of the waste, as required by Condition (2)(A), does not
meet the delisting requirements of Condition (1), BMW must report the data, in
writing, to EPA and South Carolina within 10 days of first possessing or being
made aware of that data. (C) Based on the information described in paragraphs
(6)(A) or (6)(B) and any other information received from any source, EPA will
make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires
that EPA take 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. (D) If EPA determines
that the reported information does require Agency action, EPA will notify the facility in writing of the action believed necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a
statement providing BMW with an opportunity to present information as to why the
proposed action is not necessary. BMW shall have 10 days from the date of
EPA’s notice to present such information. (E) Following the receipt of information
from BMW, as described in paragraph (6)(D), or if no such information is received
within 10 days, EPA will issue a final written determination describing the Agency
actions that are necessary to protect human health or the environment, given the
information received in accordance with paragraphs (6)(A) or (6)(B). Any required
action described in EPA’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless EPA provides otherwise.
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:14 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\31AUR1.SGM
31AUR1
51643
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
(7) Notification Requirements: BMW must provide a one-time written notification to
any State Regulatory Agency in a State to which or through which the delisted
waste described above will be transported, at least 60 days prior to the commencement of such activities. Failure to provide such a notification will result in a
violation of the delisting conditions and a possible revocation of the decision to
delist.
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–17359 Filed 8–30–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CC Docket No. 98–67 and CG Docket No.
03–123; FCC 05–139]
Telecommunications Relay Services
and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals With Hearing and Speech
Disabilities
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; petition for
reconsideration.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In this document, the
Commission grants petitions for
reconsideration of the 2004 TRS Report
& Order. Through this action, the
Commission reverses its conclusion that
translation from American Sign
Language (ASL) into Spanish is not a
telecommunications relay service (TRS)
eligible for compensation from the
Interstate TRS Fund. This decision will
allow Spanish-speaking people who are
deaf to communicate with others who
speak only Spanish and will allow them
to integrate more fully into society.
DATES: Effective September 30, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Chandler, Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability
Rights Office at (202) 418–1475 (voice),
(202) 418–0597 (TTY), or e-mail at
Thomas.Chandler@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Order on
Reconsideration, FCC 05–139, adopted
July 14, 2005, and released July 19,
2005, in CC Docket 98–67 and CG
Docket 03–123. This Order on
Reconsideration does not contain new
or modified information collections
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public
Law 104–13. In addition, it does not
contain any new or modified
‘‘information collection burden for
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:14 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
*
*
small business concerns with fewer than
25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506
(c)(4). The full text of the Order on
Reconsideration and copies of any
subsequently filed documents in this
matter will be available for public
inspection and copying during regular
business hours at the FCC Reference
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th
Street, SW., Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. The Order on
Reconsideration and copies of
subsequently filed documents in this
matter may also be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI),
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room
CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554.
Customers may contact BCPI at their
Web site: https://www.bcpiweb.com or
call 1–800–378–3160. To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (Braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202)
418–0432 (TTY). The Order on
Reconsideration can also be
downloaded in Word or Portable
Document Format (PDF) at: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro.
Synopsis
Title IV of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires
the Commission to ensure that TRS is
available to the extent possible in the
most effective manner to persons with
hearing or speech disabilities in the
United States. TRS enables a person
with a hearing or speech disability to
have access to the telephone system to
communicate with hearing individuals.
The statute requires that TRS offers
persons with hearing and speech
disabilities telephone transmission
services that are functionally equivalent
to voice telephone services. When TRS
was first implemented in 1993, persons
desiring to use TRS to call a hearing
person through the telephone system
generally used a TTY (text-telephone)
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
device connected to the public switched
telephone network (the PSTN). In what
is now referred to as a traditional TRS
call (e.g., TTY text-based), the person
with a hearing or speech disability dials
(i.e., types) a telephone number for a
TRS facility using a TTY, and then types
the number of the party he or she
desires to call. The CA, in turn, places
an outbound voice call to the called
party. The CA serves as the link in the
conversation, converting all TTY
messages from the caller into voice
messages, and all voice messages from
the called party into typed messages for
the TTY user. The process is performed
in reverse when a voice telephone user
initiates a traditional TRS call to a TTY
user.
The most striking development in the
short history of TRS has been the
enormous growth in the use of VRS. As
most frequently used, VRS allows a deaf
person whose primary language is ASL
to communicate in ASL with the CA
through a video link. The CA, in turn,
places an outbound telephone call to a
hearing person. During the call, the CA
communicates in ASL with the deaf
person and by voice with the hearing
person. As a result, the conversation
between the two end users, deaf and
hearing, flows in near real time and in
a faster and more articulate manner than
with a TTY or text-based TRS call. As
a result, VRS calls reflect a degree of
functional equivalency that is not
attainable with text-based TRS.
Section 225 of the Communications
Act, creates a cost recovery framework
whereby providers of TRS are
compensated for their costs of providing
TRS. This framework is based on a
jurisdictional separation of costs. As a
general matter, providers of intrastate
TRS are compensated by the states, and
providers of interstate TRS are
compensated from the Interstate TRS
Fund (Fund). The Interstate TRS Fund
is funded by contributions from all
carriers providing interstate
telecommunications services, and is
administered by the TRS fund
administrator, currently the National
Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.
E:\FR\FM\31AUR1.SGM
31AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 31, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51638-51643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17359]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[FRL-7961-3]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Amendment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, also the Agency or
we in this preamble) today is granting a petition to modify an
exclusion (or delisting) from the lists of hazardous waste previously
granted to BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC (BMW) in Greer, South Carolina.
This action responds to a petition for amendment submitted by BMW to
eliminate the total concentration limits in its wastewater treatment
sludge covered by its current conditional exclusion.
EPA received public comments on the November 26, 2004, Proposed
Rule (69 FR 68851) and took into account all public comments before
granting this final rule. The Agency re-evaluated the specific
information initially provided by the petitioner in its original
request and delistings granted to other automobile manufactures for
their F019 waste. This final decision eliminates the total
concentration limits for barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, and
cyanide from its conditionally excluded wastewater treatment sludge
from the requirements of the hazardous waste regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The waste will still be
subject to local, State, and Federal regulations for nonhazardous solid
wastes.
DATES: Effective August 31, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The RCRA regulatory docket for this final rule is located at
the EPA Library, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Sam
Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303, and is available for viewing from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The public may copy
material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the first 100 pages,
and at a cost of $0.15 per page for additional copies. For copying at
the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control,
please see below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general and technical information
concerning this final rule, please contact Kris Lippert, RCRA
Enforcement and Compliance Branch (Mail Code 4WD-RCRA), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal
Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562-8605,
or call, toll free (800) 241-1754, and leave a message, with your name
and phone number, for Ms. Lippert to return your call. Questions may
also be e-mailed to Ms. Lippert at lippert.kristin@epa.gov. You may
also contact Cindy Carter, Appalachia III District, South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), 975C North
Church Street, Spartanburg, South Carolina. If you wish to copy
documents at SCDHEC, please contact Ms. Carter for copying procedures
and costs.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Petition for Amendment?
C. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion?
D. When Is the Final Amendment Effective?
E. How Does This Action Affect States?
[[Page 51639]]
II. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition?
B. What Regulations Allow Hazardous Waste Generators to Delist
Waste?
C. What Information Must the Generator Supply?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Data
A. What Waste Is the Subject of This amendment?
B. How Did EPA Evaluate This Petition?
IV. Public Comments on the Proposed Amendment
A. Who Submitted Comments on the Proposed Rule?
B. Comments and Responses From EPA
V. Administrative Assessments
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?
After evaluating BMW's petition and public comments received in
response to the November 26, 2004, Proposed Rule (69 FR 68851), we are
amending the current BMW's delisting to eliminate the total
concentration limits for barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, and
cyanide from its conditionally excluded wastewater treatment sludge
from the requirements of the hazardous waste regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The waste will still be
subject to local, State, and Federal regulations for nonhazardous solid
wastes.
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Petition for Amendment?
EPA believes that the information provided by BMW provides a
reasonable basis to eliminate all total concentration limits. We,
therefore, grant BMW an amendment to its current delisting for an
elimination of all total concentration limits on its delisted
wastewater treatment sludge. EPA believes that this amendment to
eliminate all concentration limits will not harm human health and the
environment when disposed in a nonhazardous waste landfill, if the
required delisting levels are met. EPA grants the elimination of all
total concentration limits, based on descriptions of waste management
and waste history, evaluation of the results of waste sample analysis,
on the requirement that BMW's petitioned waste must meet the required
delisting level of all the constituents of concern concentration limits
as state in the May 2, 2001, Final Rule before disposal, and that no
substantial public comments were received during the public comment
period. The petitioned waste will not be subject to regulation under 40
CFR parts 262 through 268 and the permitting standards of 40 CFR part
270. Although management of the waste covered by this petition is
relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction, the waste will remain a solid
waste under RCRA. As such, the waste must be handled in accordance with
all applicable Federal, State, and local solid waste management
regulations. Pursuant to RCRA section 3007, EPA may also sample and
analyze the waste to determine if delisting conditions are met. EPA
believes that BMW's petitioned waste will not harm human health and the
environment when disposed in a nonhazardous waste landfill if the
delisting levels are met as granted in the May 2, 2001, Final Rule and
amended in this exclusion.
C. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion?
The following summarizes the maximum allowable constituent
concentrations (delisting levels) for BMW's waste. We calculated these
delisting levels for each constituent that is part of BMW's current
delisting based on the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) EPA
Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation Products
(EPACMTP) model, which grants BMW an exclusion from the lists of
hazardous wastes in subpart D of 40 CFR part 261 for its petitioned
waste when disposed in a Subtitle D landfill. BMW must meet all of the
following delisting conditions in order for this exclusion to be valid:
delisting levels in mg/l in the TCLP extract of the waste of 100.0 for
Barium, 1.0 for Cadmium, 5.0 for Chromium, 33.6 for Cyanide, 5.0 for
Lead, and 70.3 for Nickel.
This amended exclusion applies to the waste described in the
petition only if the requirements described above as well as in Table 1
of Appendix IX to part 261 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are satisfied. The maximum annual volume of the wastewater
treatment sludge is 2850 cubic yards.
D. When Is the Final Amendment Effective?
This rule is effective August 31, 2005. HSWA amended section 3010
of RCRA to allow rules to become effective in less than six months when
the regulated community does not need the six-month period to come into
compliance. That is the case here because this rule reduces, rather
than increases, the existing requirements for persons generating
hazardous wastes. For these same reasons, this rule can become
effective immediately (that is, upon publication in the Federal
Register) under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(d).
E. How Does This Action Affect States?
Because EPA is issuing today's exclusion under the Federal RCRA
delisting program, only States subject to Federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be directly affected. This would exclude two
categories of States: States having a dual system that includes Federal
RCRA requirements and their own requirements, and States who have
received EPA's authorization to make their own delisting decisions. We
describe these two situations below.
We allow states to impose their own non-RCRA 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,
or that prohibits a Federally issued exclusion from taking effect in
the State until the State approves the exclusion through a separate
State administrative action. Because a dual system (that is, both
Federal and State programs) may regulate a petitioner's waste, we urge
petitioners to contact the applicable State regulatory authorities or
agencies to establish the status of their waste under that State's
program.
We have also authorized some States to administer a delisting
program in place of the Federal program; that is, to make State
delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not necessarily
apply within those authorized States. If BMW transports the petitioned
waste to, or manages the waste in, any State with delisting
authorization, BMW must obtain delisting approval from that State
before it can manage the waste as nonhazardous in that State.
In order for this amendment to be effective in an authorized State,
that State must adopt this amendment through its State administrative
process.
II. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition?
A delisting petition is a formal request from a generator to EPA or
another agency with jurisdiction to exclude from the lists of hazardous
waste regulated by RCRA, a waste that the generator believes should not
be considered hazardous.
B. What Regulations Allow Hazardous Waste Generators To Delist Waste?
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, a generator may petition EPA to
remove its waste from hazardous waste control by excluding it from the
lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31, 261.32 and
261.33. Specifically, 40 CFR 260.20 allows any person to
[[Page 51640]]
petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts
260 through 266, 268 and 273 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. 40 CFR 260.22 provides generators the opportunity to
petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator-
specific'' basis from the hazardous waste lists. A generator can
petition EPA for an amendment to an existing exclusion under these same
provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations.
C. What Information Must the Generator Supply?
A petitioner must provide sufficient information to allow EPA to
determine that the waste to be excluded does not meet any of the
criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In
addition, the Administrator must determine that the waste is not
hazardous for any other reason.
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Data
A. What Waste Is the Subject of This Amendment?
BMW in Greer, South Carolina, manufactures automobiles for domestic
consumption and for shipment to foreign markets. The assembly plant
operations include body welding, conversion coating, painting, final
assembly, and shipment. The manufacturing process that causes F019 to
be generated is conversion coating, when applied to automobile bodies
that contain aluminum. Conversion coating takes place in the plant's
paint shop and treats the metal surface of each automobile body before
painting to provide resistance to corrosion and to prepare the metal
surface for optimum paint adhesion. Wastewater from all plant
operations is treated at BMW's wastewater pretreatment plant which is
located in an area of the paint shop. The wastewater is treated to meet
the requirements of BMW's wastewater pretreatment permit before
discharging the water to the publicly owned treatment works (POTW).
Treatment results in the formation of insoluble metal hydroxides and
phosphates. Wastewater treatment sludge is generated when these metal
hydroxides and phosphates are dewatered in a filter press. The sludge
that exits from the filter press is classified as F019 when the
automobile bodies contain aluminum, and the exit from the filter press
will be the point of generation of F019. BMW was granted its current
Federal delisting exclusion for this F019 wastewater treatment sludge
at a maximum annual volume of 2,850 cubic yards on May 2, 2001 (66 FR
21877).
A full description of this waste and the Agency's evaluation of the
original BMW's petition are contained in the ``Proposed Rule and
Request for Comments'' published in the Federal Register on February
12, 2001 (66 FR 9781). After evaluating public comment on the proposed
rule, we published a final decision in the Federal Register on May 2,
2001 (66 FR 21877), to exclude BMW's wastewater treatment sludge
derived from the treatment of EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019 from the
list of hazardous wastes found in 40 CFR 261.31. The hazardous
constituents of concern for which F019 was listed are hexavalent
chromium and cyanide (complexed). BMW petitioned the EPA to exclude its
F019 waste because BMW does not use either of these constituents in the
manufacturing process. Therefore, BMW did not believe that the waste
meets the criteria of the listing. EPA's final decision to grant the
delisting exclusion on May 2, 2001, was conditioned on the following
delisting levels: (1) Delisting levels in mg/l in the TCLP extract of
the waste of 100.0 for Barium, 1.0 for Cadmium, 5.0 for Chromium, 33.6
for Cyanide, 5.0 for Lead, and 70.3 for Nickel; (2) the total
concentration of cyanide (total, not amenable) in the waste, not the
waste leachate, must not exceed 200 mg/kg; (3) the total
concentrations, in mg/kg, of metals in the waste, not the waste
leachate, must not exceed 2,000 for Barium, 500 for Cadmium, 1,000 for
Chromium, 2,000 for Lead, and 20,000 for Nickel. If the waste exceeded
any of the delisting limits, then the waste has to be managed as
hazardous waste.
C. How Did EPA Evaluate This Petition?
In support of its original petition, BMW submitted: (1)
Descriptions of its manufacturing and wastewater treatment processes,
the generation point of the petitioned waste, and the manufacturing
steps that will contribute to its generation; (2) Material Safety Data
Sheets (MSDSs) for materials used to manufacture automobiles and to
treat wastewater; (3) the minimum and maximum annual amounts of
wastewater treatment sludge generated from 1996 through 1999, and an
estimate of the maximum annual amount expected to be generated in the
future; (4) results of analysis for metals, cyanide, sulfide, fluoride,
and volatile organic compounds in the currently generated waste at the
BMW plants in Greer, South Carolina, and Dingolfing, Germany; (5)
results of the analysis of leachate obtained by means of the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure ((TCLP), SW-846 Method 1311), from
these wastes; (6) results of the determinations for the hazardous
characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity, in these
wastes; (7) results of determinations of dry weight percent, bulk
density, and free liquids in these wastes; and (8) results of the MEP
analysis of the currently generated waste at the plant in Greer, South
Carolina.
EPA reviewed the allowable total concentrations in the waste, as
calculated by DRAS for the waste, to determine if eliminating the total
concentration limits for the constituents of concern would be still
protective to human health and the environment. The allowable total
concentrations, according to the DRAS, were all at least 1,000 times
greater than the actual maximum total concentrations found in the
waste. Based on the DRAS results, EPA grants BMW's petition for
amendment to eliminate all total concentration limits.
IV. Public Comments on the Proposed Amendment
A. Who Submitted Comments on the Proposed Rule?
EPA received public comments on the proposed noticed published on
November 26, 2004, from Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; The
Aluminum Association; BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC; Donald Humphrey; and
EPA. All commenters were supportive of the proposal except Donald
Humphrey.
B. Comments and Responses From EPA
Comment: On October 30, 2002, (67 FR 66251), EPA's Office of Solid
Waste proposed the Methods Innovation Rule (MIR) to remove from the
regulations unnecessary requirements to use only SW-846 Methods other
than those considered to be Method Defined Parameters (MDP). The Agency
is no longer generally requiring the use of only SW-846 Methods for
regulatory applications other than those involving MDPs. The general
purpose of this rule is to allow more flexibility when conducting RCRA-
related sampling and analysis activities.
Response: EPA has revised Table 1: (2) Verification Testing
Requirements: in Appendix IX of this Final Rule with appropriate
language.
Comment: The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Aluminum
Association, and BMW believe the F019 listing itself should be revised
to exclude wastewater treatment sludges from automotive industry
conversion coating on aluminum when hexavalent chromium and cyanides
are not used in the process.
[[Page 51641]]
Response: Today's final rule is site-specific and waste-specific;
it applies only to BMW's plant in Greer, South Carolina, and only to
the petitioned waste. EPA understands the commenters' concern, but it
is outside the scope of this delisting.
Comment: Donald Humphrey disagreed with granting this final rule,
because he feels that BMW must abide by the rules of RCRA.
Response: On January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim
final regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA, EPA published an
amended list of hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific
sources. This list has been amended several times, and is published in
40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. These wastes are listed as hazardous because
they exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous wastes
identified in Subpart C of part 261 (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, and toxicity) or meet the criteria for listing contained in
section 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3). Individual waste streams may vary,
however, depending on raw materials, industrial processes, and other
factors. Thus, while a waste that is described in these regulations
generally is hazardous, a specific waste from an individual facility
meeting the listing description may not be. For this reason, sections
260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion procedure, allowing BMW to
demonstrate that its F019 waste from its specific facility should not
be regulated as a hazardous waste. BMW has complied with the
requirements of sections 260.20 and 260.22, and therefore, is having
its petition to amend an exclusion (or delisting) from the lists of
hazardous waste granted.
V. Administrative Assessments
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a rule of general applicability and therefore is not a
``regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. Because this action is a rule 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, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because the rule will affect
only one facility, it will not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as specified in section 203 of UMRA, or communities of
Indian tribal governments, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000). For the same reason, this rule will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
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) 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. 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, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 15, 2005.
Alan Farmer,
Acting Director, Waste Management 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, 6924(y) and 6938.
0
2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX, Part 261 revise the entry for BMW
Manufacturing Co., LLC 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC........... Greer, South Carolina.......... Wastewater treatment sludge (EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F019) that BMW
Manufacturing Corporation (BMW)
generates by treating wastewater from
automobile assembly plant located on
Highway 101 South in Greer, South
Carolina. This is a conditional
exclusion for up to 2,850 cubic yards
of waste (hereinafter referred to as
``BMW Sludge'') that will be generated
each year and disposed in a Subtitle D
landfill after August 31, 2005. With
prior approval by the EPA, following a
public comment period, BMW may also
beneficially reuse the sludge. BMW must
demonstrate that the following
conditions are met for the exclusion to
be valid.
(1) Delisting Levels: All leachable
concentrations for these metals and
cyanide must not exceed the following
levels (ppm): Barium-100; Cadmium-1;
Chromium-5; Cyanide-33.6, Lead-5; and
Nickel-70.3. These metal and cyanide
concentrations must be measured in the
waste leachate obtained by the method
specified in 40 CFR 261.24, except that
for cyanide, deionized water must be
the leaching medium. Cyanide
concentrations in waste or leachate
must be measured by the method
specified in 40 CFR 268.40, Note 7.
[[Page 51642]]
(2) Annual Verification Testing
Requirements: Sample collection and
analyses, including quality control
procedures, must be performed using
appropriate methods. As applicable to
the method-defined parameters of
concern, analyses requiring the use of
SW-846 methods incorporated by
reference in 40 CFR 260.11 must be used
without substitution. As applicable,
the SW-846 methods might include
Methods 0010, 0011, 0020, 0023A, 0030,
0031, 0040, 0050, 0051, 0060, 0061,
1010A, 1020B, 1110A, 1310B, 1311, 1312,
1320, 1330A, 9010C, 9012B, 9040C,
9045D, 9060A, 9070A, (uses EPA Method
1664, Rev. A), 9071B, and 9095B.
Methods must meet Performance Based
Measurement System Criteria in which
the Data Quality Objectives are to
demonstrate that representative samples
of the BMW Sludge meet the delisting
levels in Condition (1). (A) Annual
Verification Testing: BMW must
implement an annual testing program to
demonstrate that constituent
concentrations measured in the TCLP
extract do not exceed the delisting
levels established in Condition (1).
(3) Waste Holding and Handling: BMW must
hold sludge containers utilized for
verification sampling until composite
sample results are obtained. If the
levels of constituents measured in the
composite samples of BMW Sludge do not
exceed the levels set forth in
Condition (1), then the BMW Sludge is
non-hazardous and must be managed in
accordance with all applicable solid
waste regulations. If constituent
levels in a composite sample exceed any
of the delisting levels set forth in
Condition (1), the batch of BMW Sludge
generated during the time period
corresponding to this sample must be
managed and disposed of in accordance
with Subtitle C of RCRA.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: BMW
must notify EPA in writing when
significant changes in the
manufacturing or wastewater treatment
processes are implemented. EPA will
determine whether these changes will
result in additional constituents of
concern. If so, EPA will notify BMW in
writing that the BMW Sludge must be
managed as hazardous waste F019 until
BMW has demonstrated that the wastes
meet the delisting levels set forth in
Condition (1) and any levels
established by EPA for the additional
constituents of concern, and BMW has
received written approval from EPA. If
EPA determines that the changes do not
result in additional constituents of
concern, EPA will notify BMW, in
writing, that BMW must verify that the
BMW Sludge continues to meet Condition
(1) delisting levels.
(5) Data Retention: Records of
analytical data from Condition (2) must
be compiled, summarized, and maintained
by BMW for a minimum of three years,
and must be furnished upon request by
EPA or the State of South Carolina, and
made available for inspection. Failure
to maintain the required records for
the specified time will be considered
by EPA, at its discretion, sufficient
basis to revoke the exclusion to the
extent directed by EPA. All data must
be accompanied by a signed copy of the
certification statement in 40 CFR
260.22(i)(12).
(6) Reopener Language: (A) If, at any
time after disposal of the delisted
waste, BMW possesses or is otherwise
made aware of any environmental data
(including but not limited to leachate
data or groundwater monitoring data) or
any other data relevant to the delisted
waste indicating that any constituent
identified in the delisting
verification testing is at a level
higher than the delisting level allowed
by EPA in granting the petition, BMW
must report the data, in writing, to
EPA and South Carolina within 10 days
of first possessing or being made aware
of that data. (B) If the testing of the
waste, as required by Condition (2)(A),
does not meet the delisting
requirements of Condition (1), BMW must
report the data, in writing, to EPA and
South Carolina within 10 days of first
possessing or being made aware of that
data. (C) Based on the information
described in paragraphs (6)(A) or
(6)(B) and any other information
received from any source, EPA will make
a preliminary determination as to
whether the reported information
requires that EPA take 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. (D) If EPA determines that
the reported information does require
Agency action, EPA will notify the
facility in writing of the action
believed necessary to protect human
health and the environment. The notice
shall include a statement of the
proposed action and a statement
providing BMW with an opportunity to
present information as to why the
proposed action is not necessary. BMW
shall have 10 days from the date of
EPA's notice to present such
information. (E) Following the receipt
of information from BMW, as described
in paragraph (6)(D), or if no such
information is received within 10 days,
EPA will issue a final written
determination describing the Agency
actions that are necessary to protect
human health or the environment, given
the information received in accordance
with paragraphs (6)(A) or (6)(B). Any
required action described in EPA's
determination shall become effective
immediately, unless EPA provides
otherwise.
[[Page 51643]]
(7) Notification Requirements: BMW must
provide a one-time written notification
to any State Regulatory Agency in a
State to which or through which the
delisted waste described above will be
transported, at least 60 days prior to
the commencement of such activities.
Failure to provide such a notification
will result in a violation of the
delisting conditions and a possible
revocation of the decision to delist.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 05-17359 Filed 8-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
