Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion, 51696-51705 [05-17364]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
51696
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Those parties interested in
participating in this process by
submitting comments, data information
or recommendations may find the
Supplementary Technical Support
Document (TSD) which EPA prepared
in support of the final rule approving
the Washington area post 1999–2005
ROP plan (70 FR 25688; May 13, 2005)
to be a useful reference with regard to
these issues. This TSD presents some
helpful examples of baselines and
methodologies used to calculate the
VOC emissions reductions achieved
from the implementation of AIM coating
rules.2 This TSD is available, upon
request, from the EPA Region 3 contact
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document, and
is also in the EDOCKET (OAR–2005–
0148–0002) for this action.
II. EPA’s Intent Regarding the
Comments, Data, Information and
Recommendations
It is EPA’s intent to consider all
relevant comments, data, information,
and recommendations submitted to us
to formulate a practicable, technically
sound approach for calculating the VOC
emissions achieved and creditable from
the implementation of an AIM coatings
rule in a given ozone nonattainment or
maintenance area. As previously stated,
EPA is commencing this process in
recognition of the need to formulate a
technically sound and consistent
approach that States may use to account
for the VOC emissions from the AIM
coatings sector in compiling base year
and projection emission inventories,
demonstrating reasonable further
progress, and conducting modeling
analyses as part of their ozone SIP
planning activities. It would also
provide for consistency in EPA’s
subsequent evaluations of states’
attainment, maintenance and progress
plans that rely upon emissions
reductions from the AIM coatings
sector.
Once EPA receives the comments,
data, and information solicited herein,
we will determine the appropriate next
steps. The EPA believes, at this time, the
next steps will likely include
rulemaking and/or guidance to provide
a practicable and technically sound
approach for States, and other interested
parties, to use in determining the VOC
emissions reductions achieved by the
implementation of AIM coating rules in
ozone nonattainment and maintenance
areas. Any such action will be
2 By citing to this Supplementary TSD as a
reference, EPA is not re-opening its final rule
approving the Washington area post-1999–2005
ROP plan (70 FR 25688; May 13, 2005).
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:22 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
conducted using notice and comment
procedures. Once this rulemaking/
guidance has been provided, it will be
available for states to use in the
development of future state
implementation plan (SIP) revisions, if
any, that rely upon VOC emissions
reductions achieved by the
implementation of AIM coating rules in
ozone nonattainment and maintenance
areas. This rulemaking/guidance will
not require any state to amend
previously approved SIP revisions,
however, it may be used by states, at
their discretion, to revise their current
SIPs as they deem appropriate.
The EPA encourages all interested
parties to participate in this process by
submitting relevant comments, data,
information and recommendations for
how best to calculate the VOC emission
reductions achieved from the adoption
and implementation of an AIM coating
rule in a given nonattainment or
maintenance area.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
is, therefore, not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Ozone, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 24, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–17357 Filed 8–30–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[FRL–7961–4]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
The Environmental Protection
Agency (the EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for
comment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to grant
a petition submitted by Saturn
Corporation (Saturn) to exclude or
‘‘delist’’ wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) sludge generated from
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
conversion coating on aluminum at
Saturn’s integrated automotive assembly
facility located at 100 Saturn Parkway in
Spring Hill, Tennessee, from the
requirements of the hazardous waste
regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
This exclusion would be valid only
when the sludge is disposed of in a
Subtitle D landfill that is permitted,
licensed, or registered by a state to
manage industrial solid waste. The EPA
used the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS) in the evaluation of
the potential impact of the petitioned
waste on human health and the
environment.
The EPA bases its proposed decision
to grant the petition based on an
evaluation of waste-specific information
provided by Saturn. This proposed
decision, if finalized, conditionally
excludes the petitioned waste from the
requirements of the RCRA hazardous
waste regulations.
If finalized, the EPA would conclude
that Saturn’s petitioned waste is
nonhazardous with respect to the
original listing criteria and that there are
no other factors that would cause the
waste to be hazardous.
DATES: The EPA will accept public
comments on this proposed decision
until October 17, 2005. The EPA will
stamp comments received 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 to EPA by
September 15, 2005. The request must
contain the information prescribed in 40
CFR 260.20(d).
ADDRESSES: Please send three copies of
your comments. You should send two
copies to the Chief, North Section,
RCRA Enforcement and Compliance
Branch, Waste Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal
Center, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta,
Georgia, 30303. You should also send
one copy to Mike Apple, Director,
Division of Solid Waste Management,
Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation, 5th Floor, L&C
Tower, 401 Church Street, Nashville,
Tennessee, 37243–1535. You should
identify your comments at the top with
this regulatory docket number: R4DLP–
0502–Saturn. You may submit your
comments electronically to Kristin
Lippert at Lippert.Kristin@epa.gov.
You should address requests for a
hearing to Narindar M. Kumar, Chief,
RCRA Enforcement and Compliance
Branch, Waste Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal
Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta,
Georgia 30303.
For
general and technical information about
this final rule, contact Kristin Lippert,
North Enforcement and Compliance
Section, (Mail Code 4WD–RCRA), RCRA
Enforcement and Compliance Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal
Center, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta,
Georgia 30303 or call (404) 562–8605.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The
information in this section is organized
as follows:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. What is EPA’s list of hazardous wastes?
B. What is a delisting petition, and what
does it require of a petitioner?
C. What regulations allow a waste to be
delisted?
D. What factors must the EPA consider in
deciding whether to grant a delisting
petition?
II. Saturn’s Petition To Delist Its Waste
A. What waste did Saturn petition EPA to
delist?
B. How is the petitioned waste generated?
C. What information did Saturn submit in
support of its petition?
III. EPA’s Evaluation of Saturn’s Petition
A. How did the EPA evaluate the
information submitted?
B. What did the EPA conclude about this
waste?
C. What other factors did the EPA consider
in its evaluation?
IV. Proposal To Delist WWTP Sludge From
Saturn’s Automobile Assembly Facility
A. What action is EPA proposing?
B. What are the terms for disposal of
Saturn’ s WWTP sludge pursuant to this
exclusion?
C. With what conditions must Saturn
comply for its WWTP sludge to be
delisted?
D. What are the maximum allowable
concentrations of hazardous constituents
in the waste?
E. What happens if Saturn is unable to
meet the terms and conditions of this
delisting?
V. Public Comments
A. How may interested parties submit
comments?
B. How may interested parties review the
docket or obtain copies of the proposed
exclusion?
VI. Regulatory Impact
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
X. Executive Order 13045
XI. Executive Order 13084
XII. National Technology Transfer and
Advancements Act
XIII. Executive Order 13132 Federalism
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:22 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
I. Background
A. What Is EPA’s List of Hazardous
Wastes?
The EPA published an amended list
of hazardous wastes from nonspecific
and specific sources on January 16,
1981, as part of its final and interim
final regulations implementing Section
3001 of RCRA. The EPA has amended
this list several times and published it
in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(40 CFR) 261.31 and 261.32. The wastes
are listed as hazardous because: (1)
They typically and frequently exhibit
one or more of the characteristics of
hazardous wastes identified in Subpart
C of Part 261 (ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, and toxicity) or (2) they meet
the criteria for listing contained in 40
CFR 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3).
Individual waste streams may vary,
however, depending on raw materials,
industrial processes, and other factors.
Thus, a specific waste from an
individual facility meeting the listing
description may not be hazardous. For
this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22
provide an exclusion procedure, called
delisting, which allows persons to prove
that the EPA should not regulate a
specific waste from a particular
generating facility as a hazardous waste.
B. What Is a Delisting Petition, and
What Does It Require of a Petitioner?
A delisting petition is a request from
a facility to the EPA or an authorized
State to exclude waste from the list of
hazardous wastes pursuant to RCRA.
The facility petitions the EPA because it
does not consider the wastes hazardous
under RCRA regulations. In a delisting
petition, the petitioner must show that
the 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 documents for the listed
waste. In addition, a petitioner must
demonstrate pursuant to 40 CFR 260.22
that the waste does not exhibit any of
the hazardous waste characteristics
(ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and
toxicity) and must present sufficient
information for the EPA to decide
whether factors other than those for
which the waste was listed warrant
retaining it as a hazardous waste (see 40
CFR 260.22, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and the
background documents for the listed
waste).
Generators remain obligated under
RCRA to confirm that their waste
remains nonhazardous based on the
hazardous waste characteristics even if
the EPA has ‘‘delisted’’ the waste.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51697
C. What Regulations Allow a Waste To
Be Delisted?
Under 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22, and 42
U.S.C. 6921(f), a generator 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 provisions of Parts 260
through 266, 268, and 273 of 40 CFR.
D. What Factors Must the EPA Consider
in Deciding Whether To Grant a
Delisting Petition?
Besides considering the criteria in 40
CFR 260.22(a) and Section 3001(f) of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and
information in the background
documents for the listed waste, the EPA
must consider any factors (including
additional constituents) other than those
for which the EPA listed the waste if a
reasonable basis exists that the
additional factors could cause the waste
to be hazardous.
The EPA must also consider as
hazardous waste mixtures containing
listed hazardous wastes and wastes
derived from treating, storing, or
disposing of listed hazardous waste (see
40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii) and (iv) and
(c)(2)(i), called the ‘‘mixture’’ and
‘‘derived-from’’ rules, respectively).
These wastes are also eligible for
exclusion and remain hazardous wastes
until excluded (see 66 FR 27266, May
16, 2001).
II. Saturn’s Petition To Delist Its Waste
A. What Waste Did Saturn Petition the
EPA To Delist?
On December 13, 2004, Saturn
petitioned the EPA to exclude its
dewatered WWTP sludge generated at
its facility in Spring Hill, Tennessee,
from the lists of hazardous waste
contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32.
The WWTP sludge (EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F019) is generated by treating
wastewater resulting from the chemical
conversion coating of aluminum. In its
petition, Saturn requested that the EPA
grant an exclusion for 3,000 cubic yards
per calendar year of dewatered WWTP
sludge.
B. How Is the Petitioned Waste
Generated?
Saturn is an integrated automobile
production facility located in Spring
Hill, Tennessee. Wastewater at the
Saturn facility is generated from various
manufacturing and assembly processes
and includes oily wastewater from
cooling and cutting operations
associated with engine manufacturing,
rinse waters and overflows from the
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
51698
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules
zinc phosphating and electrocoating
processes, and wash water from paint
spray booth operations. The process
used to treat wastewater generated from
the manufacturing and assembly
operations consists of a complex system
of primary and secondary pretreatment
processes and controls. The process
produces a sludge from the treatment of
soluble metals in wastewater by
equalization, pH adjustment, chemical
treatment, and metals precipitation. The
sludge is subsequently dewatered in a
plate and frame filter press before it is
transported off-site for disposal.
The production process at the Saturn
facility includes the application of an
aluminum sound-deadening patch to
some production vehicles. Possible
future changes to be made in the
manufacturing process, which will not
significantly affect the characteristics of
the WWTP sludge, could involve the
use of aluminum body components (and
modification to the phosphate bath) in
addition to the current steel
components.
The conversion coating process is not
regulated by RCRA when applied to
steel but when aluminum components
are incorporated into the automobile
bodies, the WWTP sludge becomes
regulated as RCRA hazardous waste
F019. While the sludge may meet the
definition of F019, the original listing of
WWTP sludge from the conversion
coating on aluminum was not based on
a zinc phosphating process, and the
addition of aluminum components on
the automobile bodies does not
introduce any constituents of concern
into the sludge. However, 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 or other factors
that might cause the waste to be
hazardous.
The 40 CFR part 261 Appendix VIII
hazardous constituents for which EPA
listed F019 hazardous wastes as
hazardous include hexavalent
chromium and cyanide (complexed).
The chemical conversion coating
process performed by Saturn is a
phosphating process that does not
utilize materials containing salts of
chromium or cyanide. Therefore, the
WWTP sludge generated by Saturn
would not contain the constituents for
which F019 was listed as generated
from its chemical conversion coating
process.
C. What Information Did Saturn Submit
in Support of Its Petition?
In support of its petition Saturn has
submitted laboratory analysis of its
WWTP sludge. The laboratory analysis
submitted includes the following: (1)
Analysis performed on samples of its
dewatered WWTP sludge taken and
analyzed by EPA: (2) analysis of the
dewatered WWTP sludge performed by
Saturn on split samples provided to the
facility by EPA and (3) analysis of the
dewatered WWTP sludge performed by
Saturn on samples taken by the facility.
The analysis performed by Saturn on
the split samples of the WWTP sludge
provided to the facility by EPA was
submitted for laboratory testing for the
entire 40 CFR Part 264 Appendix IX
constituent list (including volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs),
metals, and PCBs) and hexavalent
chromium, TCLP metals, cyanide, and
total solids. Based on the laboratory
data, data validation results, and
Saturn’s communications with the EPA,
Saturn prepared a Sampling and
Analysis Plan which was submitted to
the EPA and approved.
In accordance with the approved
Sampling and Analysis Plan and to
support its petition, Saturn collected
additional WWTP sludge samples for
laboratory testing. The samples were
collected from six roll-off containers
representing waste generated at Saturn
over a seven-week period. The samples
were analyzed as follows: (1) Samples
for VOC analyses (total and TCLP) were
collected from six roll-off containers.
The first sample was analyzed for the 40
CFR part 264 Appendix IX VOC
constituent list (total and TCLP). VOCs
(total and TCLP) detected in the first
sample were tested in the samples
collected from the second through the
sixth roll-off containers. (2) Samples
from the six roll-off containers were
analyzed for total and TCLP bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate. (3) Samples from
the six roll-off containers were analyzed
for total and TCLP metals (antimony,
arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium,
cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel,
thallium, tin, vanadium, and zinc) and
for hexavalent chromium. (4) Samples
from the six roll-off containers were
analyzed for corrosivity, total and TCLP
cyanide, ignitability, sulfide, oil and
grease, and total solids. The Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP), SW–846 Method 1311, was
used as the extraction procedure for
testing the volatile and semi-volatile
constituents of concerns. Leachable
metals were tested using the Extraction
Procedure for Oily Wastes (OWEP), SW–
846 Method 1330A. 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). Oil and grease was
analyzed using SW–846 Method 9071B,
total sulfide was tested using SW–846
Method 9034, and total cyanide was
performed using Method SW–846
Method 9012A.
Composite and grab samples of
dewatered WWTP sludge were collected
in accordance with the approved
Sampling and Analysis Plan on August
19, 2004 and submitted for laboratory
testing. Upon receipt of the laboratory
testing results, the data was validated by
a third party. The maximum values of
constituents detected in any sample of
the WWTP sludge or in a TCLP extract
of the WWTP sludge are summarized in
Table 1.
TABLE 1.—MAXIMUM TOTAL AND TCLP CONCENTRATIONS IN THE DEWATERED WWTP SLUDGE AND CORRESPONDING
DELISTING LIMITS
Maximum allowable delisting
level
(3,000 cubic yards)
Maximum concentration
observed 1
Constituent
Total
(mg/kg)
TCLP
(mg/l)
Total
(mg/kg)
TCLP
(mg/l)
Maximum
allowable
groundwater
concentration
(µg/l)
Volatile Organic Compounds
Acetone ................................................................................
<7.5
1.7
141,000,000
171
3,750
51,400
0.146
1.50
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ....................................................
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:22 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
<25
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
<0.0050
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules
51699
TABLE 1.—MAXIMUM TOTAL AND TCLP CONCENTRATIONS IN THE DEWATERED WWTP SLUDGE AND CORRESPONDING
DELISTING LIMITS—Continued
Maximum concentration
observed 1
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
(µg/l)
Metals
Antimony ..............................................................................
Arsenic .................................................................................
Barium ..................................................................................
Beryllium ..............................................................................
Chromium .............................................................................
Chromium (hexavalent) ........................................................
Cobalt ...................................................................................
Copper .................................................................................
Lead .....................................................................................
Mercury ................................................................................
Nickel ...................................................................................
Thallium ................................................................................
Tin ........................................................................................
Vanadium .............................................................................
Zinc ......................................................................................
Cyanide ................................................................................
56
<50
94
3.1
1,310 J
<4.2
3.6
91
108
0.47
4,400
<20
<100
9.9 J
17,200
0.52
<0.05 J
<0.02
<0.35
<0.029
<0.16
NT
<0.038
0.25
<0.19
<0.0006
24.2 J
<0.026
3.18
<0.27
5.72
<0.05
374,000
312,000
10,400,000
16,200
10,300,000
3,320
84,400,000
56,300,000
500,000
1.82
2,430,000
2,140
844,000,000
9,850,000
17,200,000
1,180,000
0.494
0.224
100
0.998
5.0
3.71
NA
21,800
5.0
0.195
67.8
0.211
NA
50.6
673
8.63
6.0
5.0
2,000
4.0
100
NA
2,250
1,300
15.0
2.00
750
2.00
22,500
263
11,300
200
1 These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent found in any one sample and do not necessarily represent the specific
levels found in one sample.
< Not detected at the specified concentration.
NA Not applicable.
NT Not tested.
J Estimated Concentration.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of Saturn’s
Petition
A. How Did the EPA Evaluate the
Information Submitted?
In developing this proposal, the EPA
considered the original listing criteria
and the additional factors required by
the Hazard and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See
Section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f),
and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)–(4). The EPA
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
concentrations of the constituents in the
waste; (4) the tendency of the hazardous
constituents to migrate and to
bioaccumulate; (5) its persistence 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.
For this delisting determination, the
EPA assumed that the WWTP sludge
would be disposed in a Subtitle D
landfill. Consistent with previous
delistings, the EPA identified plausible
exposure routes (groundwater, surface
water and air) for hazardous
constituents present in the petitioned
waste based upon improper
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:22 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
management of a Subtitle D landfill. To
evaluate the waste, the EPA used the
Delisting Risk Assessment Software
program (DRAS), a Windows-based
software tool, to estimate the potential
release of hazardous constituents from
the petitioned waste and to predict the
risk associated with those releases.
A detailed description of the DRAS
program and revisions is available at 65
FR 58015, 65 FR 59000, 65 FR 75879,
and 67 FR 10341. The DRAS uses EPA’s
Composite Model for Leachate
Migration with Transformation Products
(EPACMTP) to predict the potential for
release of hazardous constituents to
groundwater from landfilled wastes and
subsequent potential routes of exposure
to a receptor. For a release to
groundwater, the EPA considered routes
of exposure to a human receptor from
ingestion of contaminated groundwater,
inhalation from groundwater via
showering and dermal contact while
bathing. The DRAS program also
considers the surface water pathway
from the potential erosion of waste from
runoff from an open landfill. It evaluates
the potential risk to a human receptor
from potential ingestion of fish and
potential ingestion of drinking water.
DRAS also considers potential releases
of waste particles and volatile emissions
to air from the surface of an open
landfill. For a potential release to air,
the EPA considered potential risks from
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
inhalation of particulates and
absorption into the lungs, ingestion of
particulates eliminated from respiratory
passages and subsequently swallowed,
air deposition of particulates and
subsequent ingestion of the soil/waste
mixture, and inhalation of volatile
constituents.
In the DRAS model, the EPA used the
maximum estimated waste volume and
the maximum reported total and
leachate concentration as inputs to
estimate the potential constituent
concentrations in the groundwater, soil,
surface water or air. The DRAS program
back calculated a maximum allowable
concentration level that would not
exceed protective levels in both the
waste and the leachate for each
constituent at the annual waste volume
of 3,000 cubic yards.
B. What Did the EPA Conclude About
This Waste?
After reviewing Saturn’s
manufacturing and wastewater
treatment processes, the EPA concluded
that no other hazardous constituents of
concern, other than those for which the
testing was performed, are likely to be
present or formed as reaction products
or by-products in Saturn’s WWTP
sludge. EPA also concluded on the basis
of explanations and analytical data
provided by Saturn pursuant to 40 CFR
260.22, that the WWTP sludge does not
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
51700
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules
exhibit the characteristics of ignitability,
corrosivity, or reactivity (see 40 CFR
261.21, 261.22 and 261.23,
respectively.)
The EPA compared the analytical
results submitted by Saturn 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 WWTP sludge or the
leachate from the sludge are
summarized in Table 1, above. All
constituents of concern were within
levels. Table 1 also includes the
maximum allowable levels in
groundwater at a potential receptor
well, as evaluated by the DRAS. These
levels are the more conservative of
either the Safety Drinking Water Act
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) or
the health-based value calculated by
DRAS based on the target cancer risk
level of 10¥6. For arsenic, the target
cancer risk was set at 10¥4 in
consideration of the MCL and the
potential for natural occurrence. The
maximum allowable groundwater
concentration and delisting level for
arsenic correspond to a drinking water
concentration less than one half the
current MCL of 10 µg/l.
EPA also used the DRAS program to
estimate the aggregate cancer risk and
hazard index of 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 × 10¥5 and the target
hazard index is one. The Saturn WWTP
sludge met both of these criteria.
C. What Other Factors Did the EPA
Consider in Its Evaluation?
During the evaluation of this petition,
the EPA also considered the potential
impact of the hazardous constituents
from WWTP sludge via nongroundwater routes (i.e., air emissions
and surface runoff).
In regard to potential airborne
emissions, the EPA evaluated the
potential risk resulting from the
unlikely scenario of airborne exposure
to hazardous constituents released from
the WWTP sludge in an open landfill.
The results of this unlikely worst-case
analysis indicated that there is no
substantial present or potential hazard
to human health and the environment
from airborne emissions from the
WWTP sludge.
The EPA also considered the potential
impact of releases of hazardous
constituents from the WWTP sludge via
surface water runoff. The EPA believes
that containment structures at
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:22 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
municipal solid waste landfills can
effectively control surface water runoff,
as the Subtitle D regulations (see 56 FR
50978, October 9, 1991) prohibit
pollutant discharges into surface waters.
Furthermore, and in the unlikely event
of surface water runoff at municipal
solid waste landfills, the concentrations
of any soluble hazardous constituents in
runoff will tend to be lower than the
levels in the TCLP leachate analyses
reported in this proposal due to the
aggressive acidic medium used in the
TCLP extraction. For these reasons, the
EPA believes that contamination of
surface water through runoff from the
waste disposal area is very unlikely.
Nevertheless, the EPA evaluated the
potential impacts on surface water if the
dewatered WWTP sludge was released
from a municipal solid waste landfill
through runoff and erosion. The
estimated levels of the hazardous
constituents of concern in surface water
would be well below health-based levels
for human health, as well as below the
EPA Chronic Water Quality Criteria for
aquatic organisms (US EPA, OWRS,
1987).
The EPA concluded that the WWTP
sludge is not a present or potential
hazard to human health and the
environment from airborne emissions
and surface water runoff.
IV. Proposal To Delist WWTP Sludge
From Saturn’s Automobile Assembly
Facility
A. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
Today the EPA is proposing to
conditionally exclude or delist 3,000
cubic yards annually of WWTP sludge
generated at Saturn’s Spring Hill,
Tennessee, automotive assembly
facility.
B. What Are the Terms for Disposal of
Saturn’s WWTP Sludge Pursuant to This
Exclusion?
Saturn must dispose of the WWTP
sludge 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.
C. With What Conditions Must Saturn
Comply for Its WWTP Sludge To Be
Delisted?
The petitioner, Saturn, must comply
with the requirements in 40 CFR part
261, Appendix IX, Table 1 as amended
by this proposal. The text below gives
the rationale and details of those
requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(1) Delisting Levels:
Saturn must sample and analyze the
dewatered WWTP sludge in accordance
with Paragraph (3) and 40 CFR part 261,
Appendix IX, Table 1 to ensure that the
criteria for delisting continues to be met.
The constituents for which Saturn must
test the leachate from the dewatered
WWTP sludge are provided in
Paragraph (7) and in 40 CFR part 261,
Appendix IX, Table 1. The EPA selected
the constituents based upon the
descriptions of the manufacturing
process used by Saturn, previous test
data provided for the waste, and the
respective health-based levels used in
delisting decision-making.
To meet the conditions of this
delisting, the constituent concentrations
in the leachate from the dewatered
WWTP sludge must not exceed the
concentrations provided in Paragraph
(7) and in 40 CFR part 261, Appendix
IX, Table 1. The delisting levels
represent the maximum allowable
concentrations in the leachate from the
testing of the WWTP sludge.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
Saturn will manage accumulated
WWTP sludge in accordance with the
applicable regulations and continue to
dispose of the WWTP sludge as a
hazardous waste until the first quarterly
verification testing has been completed.
If the results of the first quarterly test
indicate that no constituent is present in
the sludge at a concentration that
exceeds the delisting level, Saturn can
manage and dispose of the sludge as a
nonhazardous waste. Holding the
dewatered WWTP sludge until
characterization is complete will ensure
that the waste is managed properly.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements:
Saturn must complete a testing
program to verify that the dewatered
WWTP sludge does not exceed the
maximum delisting levels. If the EPA
determines that the data from the
verification testing program exceeds the
maximum delisting levels, this
exclusion does not apply to the tested
waste. The verification testing program
operates on a quarterly basis for one
year, followed by testing on an annual
basis.
The first part of the verification
testing program consists of testing the
dewatered WWTP sludge for the
constituents specified in Paragraph (7)
on a quarterly basis for a period of one
year. The quarterly testing will be
performed by collecting and analyzing
one composite sample on a quarterly
basis for one year. Each composite
sample will consist of four (4) grab
samples collected from an individual
roll-off container. The first sample can
be collected at any time after EPA has
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules
finalized this rule. The remaining three
quarterly samples will be collected at
approximately ninety (90)-day intervals
from the collection of the first quarterly
sample.
The second part of the verification
testing program is the annual testing of
one composite sample (consisting of
four grab samples from one roll-off
container) of dewatered WWTP sludge
for the constituents specified in
Paragraph (7). The annual tests will be
performed by collecting a composite
sample during the same month as the
final quarterly (first annual) sample was
collected.
If the constituent concentrations in
the dewatered WWTP sludge in any
roll-off container exceed the delisting
levels, then Saturn must dispose of the
waste as hazardous. Saturn must submit
the data obtained from its quarterly and
annual verification testing to EPA. If the
data exceeds the delisting criteria, then
Saturn must notify the EPA according to
the requirements in Paragraph (6). After
notification, EPA will make a decision
as to whether the reported information
requires further EPA action to protect
human health and the environment.
This exclusion is effective upon
publication in the Federal Register but
disposal of the WWTP sludge as a
nonhazardous waste cannot begin until
the first quarterly verification testing
has been completed and the data has
been submitted to EPA. If the quarterly
or annual verification testing is not
performed, the dewatered WWTP sludge
cannot be disposed as a delisted waste
until Saturn obtains the written
approval of the EPA.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions:
Paragraph (4) requires Saturn to notify
EPA in writing if the manufacturing
process, the wastewater treatment
process, or the chemicals used in the
processes significantly change,
including but not limited to the type,
composition, and amount of waste
generated. If there is a significant
change, Saturn must handle the WWTP
sludge after the process change as
hazardous until Saturn has
demonstrated to the EPA that the waste
continues to meet the delisting levels
and that no new hazardous constituents
listed in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR part
261 have been introduced and Saturn
has received written approval from the
EPA.
(5) Data Submittals:
As indicated in Paragraph (3) above,
Saturn is required to submit the data
obtained from its quarterly and annual
verification testing to the EPA. To
document that Saturn is appropriately
managing the dewatered WWTP sludge,
Saturn must also compile, summarize,
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:22 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
and maintain delisting records and
analytical data on-site for a minimum
period of five years. Paragraph (5)
requires Saturn to furnish the data upon
request for inspection by any employee
or representative of the EPA or the State
of Tennessee.
If the proposed exclusion is made
final, then it will apply only to 3,000
cubic yards per calendar year of
dewatered WWTP sludge generated at
the Saturn facility after the first
successful quarterly verification test.
(6) Reopener:
The purpose of Paragraph (6) is to
require Saturn to disclose new or
different information related to a
condition at the facility or disposal of
the waste if it is pertinent to the
delisting. Saturn must also use this
procedure if the waste sample in the
annual testing fails to meet the levels
found in Paragraph (1). This provision
will allow the EPA to reevaluate the
exclusion if a source provides new or
additional information to the EPA. The
EPA will evaluate the information on
which it based the decision to see if it
is still correct, or if circumstances have
changed so that the information is no
longer correct or would cause the EPA
to deny the petition if presented.
This provision expressly requires
Saturn to report differing site conditions
or assumptions used in the petition in
addition to failure to meet the annual
testing conditions within ten (10) days
of discovery. If the EPA discovers such
information itself or from a third party,
it can act on it as appropriate. The
language being proposed is similar to
those provisions found in RCRA
regulations governing no-migration
petitions at § 268.6.
(7) Notification Requirements:
In order to adequately track wastes
that have been delisted, the EPA is
requiring that Saturn provide a one-time
notification to any State regulatory
agency through which or to which the
delisted waste is being carried. Saturn
must provide this notification within
sixty (60) days of commencing this
activity.
D. 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—0.494;
arsenic—0.224; total chromium—3.71;
lead—5.0; nickel—67.8; thallium—
0.211; and zinc—673.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51701
E. What Happens if Saturn Is Unable To
Meet the Terms and Conditions of This
Delisting?
If Saturn violates the terms and
conditions established in the exclusion,
the EPA will initiate procedures to
withdraw the exclusion. Where there is
an immediate threat to human health
and the environment, the EPA will
evaluate the need for enforcement
activities on a case-by-case basis. The
EPA expects Saturn to conduct the
appropriate waste analysis and comply
with the criteria explained above in
Paragraph (1) of the exclusion.
V. Public Comments
A. How May Interested Parties Submit
Comments?
The EPA is requesting public
comments on this proposed decision.
Please send three copies of your
comments. You should send two copies
to the Chief, North Section, RCRA
Enforcement and Compliance Branch,
Waste Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 4, Sam Nunn
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth
Street S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. You
should also send a copy to Mr. Mike
Apple, Director, Division of Solid Waste
Management, Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation, 5th
Floor, L&C Tower, 401 Church Street,
Nashville, Tennessee 37243–1535. You
should identify your comments at the
top with this regulatory docket number:
R4DLP–0502-Saturn. You may submit
your comments electronically to Kristin
Lippert at Lippert.kristin@epa.gov.
You should submit requests for a
hearing to Narindar M. Kumar, Chief,
RCRA Enforcement and Compliance
Branch, Waste Division, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal
Center, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta,
Georgia 30303.
B. How May Interested Parties Review
the Docket or Obtain Copies of the
Proposed Exclusion?
You may review the RCRA regulatory
docket for this proposed rule at the U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal
Center, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta,
Georgia 30303. It is available for
viewing in the EPA Freedom of
Information Act Review Room from 9
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. You may
call (404) 562–8605 for appointments.
The public may copy material from any
regulatory docket at no cost for the first
one hundred (100) pages, and at fifteen
(15) cents per page for additional copies.
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
51702
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules
VI. Regulatory Impact
Because EPA is issuing today’s
exclusion under the federal RCRA
delisting program, only states subject to
federal RCRA delisting provisions
would be affected. This exclusion may
not be effective in states that have
received EPA’s authorization to make
their own delisting decisions.
Under Section 3009 of RCRA, EPA
allows states to impose their own nonRCRA regulatory requirements that are
more stringent than EPA’s. These more
stringent requirements may include a
provision that prohibits a federally
issued exclusion from taking effect in
the state. The EPA urges petitioners to
contact the state regulatory authority to
establish the status of their wastes under
the state law.
The EPA has also authorized some
states to administer a delisting program
in place of the federal program, that is,
to make state delisting decisions.
Therefore, this exclusion does not apply
in those authorized states. If Saturn
manages the WWTP sludge in any state
with delisting authorization, Saturn
must obtain delisting authorization from
the state before it can manage the
WWTP sludge as nonhazardous in that
state.
Under Executive Order 12866, the
EPA must conduct an ‘‘assessment of
the potential costs and benefits’ for all
‘‘significant’’ regulatory actions. The
proposal to grant an exclusion is not
significant, since its effect, if
promulgated, would be to reduce the
overall costs and economic impact of
the EPA’s hazardous waste management
regulations. This reduction would be
achieved by excluding waste generated
at a specific facility from the EPA’s lists
of hazardous wastes, thus enabling a
facility to manage its waste as
nonhazardous.
Because there is no additional impact
from this proposed rule, this proposal
would not be a significant regulation,
and no cost/benefit assessment is
required. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has also exempted this
rule from the requirement for OMB
review under Section (6) of Executive
Order 12866.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.S.C. Sections 601–612, whenever an
agency is required to publish a general
notice of rulemaking for any proposed
or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a
regulatory flexibility analysis which
describes the impact of the rule on small
entities (that is, small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
VerDate Aug<18>2005
17:29 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility
analysis is required, however, if the
Administrator or delegated
representative certifies that the rule will
not have any impact on small entities.
This rule, if promulgated, will not
have an adverse economic impact on
small entities since its effect would be
to reduce the overall costs of the EPA’s
hazardous waste regulations and would
be limited to one facility. Accordingly,
the EPA hereby certifies that this
proposed regulation, if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This regulation, therefore, does
not require a regulatory flexibility
analysis.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and record
keeping requirements associated with
this proposed rule have been approved
by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(Pub. L. 96–511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
and have been assigned OMB Control
Number 2050–0053.
IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104–4, which was signed
into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA
generally must prepare a written
statement for rules with Federal
mandates that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, and tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, of $100 million or more
in any one year.
When such a statement is required for
the EPA rules, under section 205 of the
UMRA the EPA must identify and
consider alternatives, including the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative that achieves
the objectives of the rule. The EPA must
select that alternative, unless the
Administrator explains in the final rule
why it was not selected or it is
inconsistent with law.
Before the EPA establishes regulatory
requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments,
including tribal governments, the EPA
must develop under section 203 of the
UMRA a small government agency plan.
The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments,
giving them meaningful and timely
input in the development of the EPA’s
regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates,
and informing, educating, and advising
them on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The UMRA generally defines a
Federal mandate for regulatory purposes
as one that imposes an enforceable duty
upon state, local, or tribal governments
or the private sector.
The EPA finds that this delisting
decision is deregulatory in nature and
does not impose any enforceable duty
on any State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. In
addition, the proposed delisting
decision does not establish any
regulatory requirements for small
governments and so does not require a
small government agency plan under
UMRA section 203.
X. Executive Order 13045
The Executive Order 13045 is entitled
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
This order applies to any rule that the
EPA determines (1) is economically
significant as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) the environmental
health or safety risk addressed by the
rule has a disproportionate effect on
children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the EPA. This proposed
rule is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because this is not an
economically significant regulatory
action as defined by Executive Order
12866.
XI. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, the
EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that
significantly affects or uniquely affects
the communities of Indian tribal
governments, and that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on
those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal
governments.
If the mandate is unfunded, the EPA
must provide to the Office of
Management and Budget, in a separately
identified section of the preamble to the
rule, a description of the extent of the
EPA’s prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal
governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement
supporting the need to issue the
regulation.
In addition, Executive Order 13084
requires the EPA to develop an effective
process permitting elected and other
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules
representatives of Indian tribal
governments to have ‘‘meaningful and
timely input’’ in the development of
regulatory policies on matters that
significantly or uniquely affect their
communities of Indian tribal
governments. This action does not
involve or impose any requirements that
affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this rule.
XII. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Under section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act, the EPA is directed to use
voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so
would be inconsistent with applicable
law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (for example, materials
specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, business practices, etc.)
developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standard bodies. Where
available and potentially applicable
voluntary consensus standards are not
used by the EPA, the Act requires that
the EPA provide Congress, through the
OMB, an explanation of the reasons for
not using such standards.
This rule does not establish any new
technical standards and thus, the EPA
has no need to consider the use of
voluntary consensus standards in
developing this final rule.
XIII. Executive Order 13132 Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) requires the EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ are defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that 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.’’
Under section 6 of Executive Order
13132, the EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism
implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not
required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local
governments, or the EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation. The EPA also may not issue
a regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State
law unless the EPA consults with State
and local officials early in the process
of developing the proposed regulation.
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have a
substantial direct effect on States, on the
51703
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, because it
affects only one facility.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous
waste, Recycling, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Section 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f).
Dated: August 15, 2005.
Alan Farmer,
Acting Director, Waste Management Division,
Region 4.
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 waste is added in
alphabetical order by facility to read as
follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261—Waste
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22
TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
Facility
Address
Waste description
*
Saturn Corporation ....
*
Spring Hill, TN ...........
*
*
*
*
*
Dewatered wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019) generated at a maximum rate of 3,000 cubic yards per calendar year. The sludge must be disposed in a lined, Subtitle D landfill with leachate collection that is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized to accept the delisted WWTP sludge in accordance with 40 CFR part 258.
The exclusion becomes effective on [insert publication date of the final rule].
For the exclusion to be valid, Saturn must implement a verification testing program that meets
the following conditions:
(1) Delisting Levels: The constituent concentrations in an extract of the waste must not exceed
the following maximum allowable concentrations in mg/l: antimony—0.494; arsenic—0.224;
total chromium—3.71; lead—5.0; nickel—68; thallium—0.211; and zinc—673. 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 Saturn’s sludge meet the delisting levels in this condition.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
(A) Saturn must accumulate the hazardous waste dewatered WWTP sludge in accordance with
the applicable regulations of 40 CFR 262.34 and continue to dispose of the dewatered
WWTP sludge as hazardous waste.
VerDate Aug<18>2005
17:29 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
51704
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
(B) After the first quarterly verification sampling event described in Condition (3) has been completed and the laboratory data demonstrates that no constituent is present in the sample at a
level which exceeds the delisting levels set in Condition (1), Saturn can manage and dispose
of the dewatered WWTP sludge as nonhazardous according to all applicable solid waste regulations.
(C) If constituent levels in any sample taken by Saturn exceed any of the delisting levels set in
Condition (1), Saturn must do the following:
(i) notify EPA in accordance with Condition (6) and
(ii) manage and dispose the dewatered WWTP sludge as hazardous waste generated under
Subtitle C of RCRA.
(3) Quarterly Testing Requirements: Upon this exclusion becoming final, Saturn may perform
quarterly analytical testing by sampling and analyzing the dewatered WWTP sludge as follows:
(i) Collect one representative composite sample (consisting of four grab samples) of the hazardous waste dewatered WWTP sludge at any time after EPA grants the final delisting. In addition, collect the second, third, and fourth quarterly samples at approximately ninety (90)-day
intervals after EPA grants the final exclusion.
(ii) Analyze the samples for all constituents listed in Condition (1). Any roll-offs from which the
composite sample is taken exceeding the delisting levels listed in Condition (1) must be disposed as hazardous waste in a Subtitle C landfill. (iii) Within forty-five (45) days after taking
its first quarterly sample, Saturn will report its first quarterly analytical test data to EPA. If levels of constituents measured in the sample of the dewatered WWTP sludge do not exceed
the levels set forth in Condition (1) of this exclusion, Saturn can manage and dispose the
nonhazardous dewatered WWTP sludge according to all applicable solid waste regulations.
(4) Annual Verification Testing: (i) If Saturn completes the quarterly testing specified in Condition (3) above, and no sample contains a constituent with a level which exceeds the limits set
forth in Condition (1), Saturn may begin annual verification testing on an annual basis. Saturn
must collect and analyze one sample of the WWTP sludge on an annual basis. as follows:
Saturn must test one representative composite sample of the dewatered WWTP sludge for all
constituents listed in Condition (1) at least once per calendar year.
(ii) The sample collected for annual verification testing shall be a representative composite
sample consisting of four grab samples that will be collected in accordance with the appropriate methods described in Condition (1).
(iii) The sample for the annual testing for the second and subsequent annual testing events
shall be collected within the same calendar month as the first annual verification sample.
(5) Changes in Operating Conditions: Saturn 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 Saturn in writing that Saturn’s sludge must be managed as hazardous waste F019
until Saturn 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 Saturn
has received written approval from EPA. If EPA determines that the changes do not result in
additional constituents of concern, EPA will notify Saturn, in writing, that Saturn must verify
that Saturn’s sludge continues to meet Condition (1) delisting levels.
(6) Data Submittals: Saturn must submit the data obtained through verification testing at Saturn
or as required by other conditions of this rule to: information described below. If Saturn fails
to submit the required data within the specified time or maintain the required records on-site
for the specified time, the EPA, at its discretion, will consider this sufficient basis to re-open
the exclusion as described in Condition (6). Saturn must:
(A) Submit the data obtained through Condition (3) to the Chief, North Section, RCRA Enforcement and Compliance Branch, Waste Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region
4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta, Georgia, 30303, within
the time specified. The quarterly verification data, annual verification data, and certification of
proper disposal must be submitted to EPA annually upon the anniversary of the effective
date of this exclusion. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the certification
statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).
(B) Compile, Summarize, and Maintain Records: Saturn must compile, summarize, and maintain at Saturn records of operating conditions and analytical data records of analytical data
from Condition (3), summarized, and maintained on-site for a minimum of five years. Saturn
must furnish these records and data when either the EPA or the State of Tennessee request
them for inspection.
(C) Send along with all data a signed copy of the following certification statement, to attest to
the truth and accuracy of the data submitted: ‘‘I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this demonstration and all
attached documents, and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for getting the information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate, and
complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for sending false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.’’
(6) Reopener.
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:22 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
51705
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
(A) If, at any time after disposal of the delisted waste, Saturn possesses or is otherwise made
aware of any data (including but not limited to leachate data or groundwater monitoring data)
relevant to the delisted WWTP sludge at Saturn indicating that any constituent is at a level in
the leachate higher than the specified delisting level or TCLP regulatory level, then Saturn
must report the data, in writing, to the Regional Administrator within ten (10) days of first possessing or being made aware of that data.
(B) Based upon the information described in Paragraph (A) and any other information received
from any source, the EPA Regional Administrator will make a preliminary determination as to
whether the reported information requires EPA 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 EPA action, the Regional Administrator will notify Saturn in writing of the actions the Regional Administrator believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notification shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing Saturn with
an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed EPA action is not necessary.
Saturn shall have ten (10) days from the date of the Regional Administrator’s notice to
present the information.
(D) Following the receipt of information from Saturn, or if Saturn presents no further information
after 10 days, the Regional Administrator will issue a final written determination describing
the EPA 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.
(7) Notification Requirements: Before transporting the delisted waste, Saturn must provide a
one-time written notification to any State Regulatory Agency to which or through which it will
transport the delisted WWTP sludge for disposal. The notification will be updated if Saturn
transports the delisted WWTP sludge to a different disposal facility. Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting variance and a possible revocation of the decision.
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–17364 Filed 8–30–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 97
[WT Docket No. 05–235; FCC 05–143]
Amateur Service Rules
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document proposes to
amend the amateur radio service rules
to eliminate the requirement that
individuals pass a telegraphy
examination in order to qualify for any
amateur radio operator license.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
October 31, 2005 and reply comments
are due November 14, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by WT Docket No. 05–235;
FCC 05–143, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:22 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
*
*
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• People with Disabilities: Contact
the FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202)
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William T. Cross,
William.Cross@fcc.gov, Public Safety
and Critical Infrastructure Division,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
(202) 418–0680, TTY (202) 418–7233.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Federal
Communications Commission’s Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking and Order
(NPRM), WT Docket No. 05–235, FCC
05–143, adopted July 15, 2005, and
released July 19, 2005. The full text of
this document is available for
inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–
A257, Washington, DC 20554. The
complete text may be purchased from
the Commission’s duplicating
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
*
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.,
Portals II, 445 12th Street, Suite CY–
B402, Washington, DC 20554.
Alternative formats are available for
people with disabilities (Braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format), by
sending an e-mail to FCC504@fcc.gov or
calling the Consumer and Government
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530
(voice), (202) 418–0432 (TTY).
1. The Commission initiated this
proceeding to amend the part 97
Amateur Radio Service rules in
response to eighteen petitions for
rulemaking. The petitioners request that
we amend the Commission’s amateur
radio service rules to implement revised
international Radio Regulations that
were adopted at the 2003 World
Radiocommunication Conference
(WRC–03). The Commission found that
some of the petitions have presented
sufficient evidence to warrant proposing
rule changes, and in the interest of
administrative efficiency, it
consolidated these proposals in this
NPRM. Specifically, the Commission
proposed to amend its amateur service
rules to eliminate the requirement that
individuals pass a telegraphy
examination in order to qualify for any
amateur radio operator license.
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 31, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51696-51705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17364]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[FRL-7961-4]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to grant a petition submitted by Saturn
Corporation (Saturn) to exclude or ``delist'' wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP) sludge generated from conversion coating on aluminum at
Saturn's integrated automotive assembly facility located at 100 Saturn
Parkway in Spring Hill, Tennessee, from the requirements of the
hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). This exclusion would be valid only when the sludge
is disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill that is permitted, licensed, or
registered by a state to manage industrial solid waste. The EPA used
the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) in the evaluation of the
potential impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the
environment.
The EPA bases its proposed decision to grant the petition based on
an evaluation of waste-specific information provided by Saturn. This
proposed decision, if finalized, conditionally excludes the petitioned
waste from the requirements of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations.
If finalized, the EPA would conclude that Saturn's petitioned waste
is nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria and that
there are no other factors that would cause the waste to be hazardous.
DATES: The EPA will accept public comments on this proposed decision
until October 17, 2005. The EPA will stamp comments received 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 to EPA by
September 15, 2005. The request must contain the information prescribed
in 40 CFR 260.20(d).
ADDRESSES: Please send three copies of your comments. You should send
two copies to the Chief, North Section, RCRA Enforcement and Compliance
Branch, Waste Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4,
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta,
Georgia, 30303. You should also send one copy to Mike Apple, Director,
Division of Solid Waste Management, Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation, 5th Floor, L&C Tower, 401 Church Street, Nashville,
Tennessee, 37243-1535. You should identify your comments at the top
with this regulatory docket number: R4DLP-0502-Saturn. You may submit
your comments electronically to Kristin Lippert at
Lippert.Kristin@epa.gov.
You should address requests for a hearing to Narindar M. Kumar,
Chief, RCRA Enforcement and Compliance Branch, Waste Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
[[Page 51697]]
Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general and technical information
about this final rule, contact Kristin Lippert, North Enforcement and
Compliance Section, (Mail Code 4WD-RCRA), RCRA Enforcement and
Compliance Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Sam
Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta, Georgia
30303 or call (404) 562-8605.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Background
A. What is EPA's list of hazardous wastes?
B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a
petitioner?
C. What regulations allow a waste to be delisted?
D. What factors must the EPA consider in deciding whether to
grant a delisting petition?
II. Saturn's Petition To Delist Its Waste
A. What waste did Saturn petition EPA to delist?
B. How is the petitioned waste generated?
C. What information did Saturn submit in support of its
petition?
III. EPA's Evaluation of Saturn's Petition
A. How did the EPA evaluate the information submitted?
B. What did the EPA conclude about this waste?
C. What other factors did the EPA consider in its evaluation?
IV. Proposal To Delist WWTP Sludge From Saturn's Automobile Assembly
Facility
A. What action is EPA proposing?
B. What are the terms for disposal of Saturn' s WWTP sludge
pursuant to this exclusion?
C. With what conditions must Saturn comply for its WWTP sludge
to be delisted?
D. What are the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the waste?
E. What happens if Saturn is unable to meet the terms and
conditions of this delisting?
V. Public Comments
A. How may interested parties submit comments?
B. How may interested parties review the docket or obtain copies
of the proposed exclusion?
VI. Regulatory Impact
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
X. Executive Order 13045
XI. Executive Order 13084
XII. National Technology Transfer and Advancements Act
XIII. Executive Order 13132 Federalism
I. Background
A. What Is EPA's List of Hazardous Wastes?
The EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from
nonspecific and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its
final and interim final regulations implementing Section 3001 of RCRA.
The EPA has amended this list several times and published it in Title
40 Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) 261.31 and 261.32. The wastes
are listed as hazardous because: (1) They typically and frequently
exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous wastes
identified in Subpart C of Part 261 (ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, and toxicity) or (2) they meet the criteria for listing
contained in 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3).
Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, a specific
waste from an individual facility meeting the listing description may
not be hazardous. For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 provide an
exclusion procedure, called delisting, which allows persons to prove
that the EPA should not regulate a specific waste from a particular
generating facility as a hazardous waste.
B. What Is a Delisting Petition, and What Does It Require of a
Petitioner?
A delisting petition is a request from a facility to the EPA or an
authorized State to exclude waste from the list of hazardous wastes
pursuant to RCRA. The facility petitions the EPA because it does not
consider the wastes hazardous under RCRA regulations. In a delisting
petition, the petitioner must show that the 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
documents for the listed waste. In addition, a petitioner must
demonstrate pursuant to 40 CFR 260.22 that the waste does not exhibit
any of the hazardous waste characteristics (ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity, and toxicity) and must present sufficient information for
the EPA to decide whether factors other than those for which the waste
was listed warrant retaining it as a hazardous waste (see 40 CFR
260.22, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and the background documents for the listed
waste).
Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm that their waste
remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics even
if the EPA has ``delisted'' the waste.
C. What Regulations Allow a Waste To Be Delisted?
Under 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22, and 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), a generator 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
provisions of Parts 260 through 266, 268, and 273 of 40 CFR.
D. What Factors Must the EPA Consider in Deciding Whether To Grant a
Delisting Petition?
Besides considering the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a) and Section
3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and information in the background
documents for the listed waste, the EPA must consider any factors
(including additional constituents) other than those for which the EPA
listed the waste if a reasonable basis exists that the additional
factors could cause the waste to be hazardous.
The EPA must also consider as hazardous waste mixtures containing
listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or
disposing of listed hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii) and
(iv) and (c)(2)(i), called the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively). These wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain
hazardous wastes until excluded (see 66 FR 27266, May 16, 2001).
II. Saturn's Petition To Delist Its Waste
A. What Waste Did Saturn Petition the EPA To Delist?
On December 13, 2004, Saturn petitioned the EPA to exclude its
dewatered WWTP sludge generated at its facility in Spring Hill,
Tennessee, from the lists of hazardous waste contained in 40 CFR 261.31
and 261.32. The WWTP sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019) is generated
by treating wastewater resulting from the chemical conversion coating
of aluminum. In its petition, Saturn requested that the EPA grant an
exclusion for 3,000 cubic yards per calendar year of dewatered WWTP
sludge.
B. How Is the Petitioned Waste Generated?
Saturn is an integrated automobile production facility located in
Spring Hill, Tennessee. Wastewater at the Saturn facility is generated
from various manufacturing and assembly processes and includes oily
wastewater from cooling and cutting operations associated with engine
manufacturing, rinse waters and overflows from the
[[Page 51698]]
zinc phosphating and electrocoating processes, and wash water from
paint spray booth operations. The process used to treat wastewater
generated from the manufacturing and assembly operations consists of a
complex system of primary and secondary pretreatment processes and
controls. The process produces a sludge from the treatment of soluble
metals in wastewater by equalization, pH adjustment, chemical
treatment, and metals precipitation. The sludge is subsequently
dewatered in a plate and frame filter press before it is transported
off-site for disposal.
The production process at the Saturn facility includes the
application of an aluminum sound-deadening patch to some production
vehicles. Possible future changes to be made in the manufacturing
process, which will not significantly affect the characteristics of the
WWTP sludge, could involve the use of aluminum body components (and
modification to the phosphate bath) in addition to the current steel
components.
The conversion coating process is not regulated by RCRA when
applied to steel but when aluminum components are incorporated into the
automobile bodies, the WWTP sludge becomes regulated as RCRA hazardous
waste F019. While the sludge may meet the definition of F019, the
original listing of WWTP sludge from the conversion coating on aluminum
was not based on a zinc phosphating process, and the addition of
aluminum components on the automobile bodies does not introduce any
constituents of concern into the sludge. However, 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 or other
factors that might cause the waste to be hazardous.
The 40 CFR part 261 Appendix VIII hazardous constituents for which
EPA listed F019 hazardous wastes as hazardous include hexavalent
chromium and cyanide (complexed). The chemical conversion coating
process performed by Saturn is a phosphating process that does not
utilize materials containing salts of chromium or cyanide. Therefore,
the WWTP sludge generated by Saturn would not contain the constituents
for which F019 was listed as generated from its chemical conversion
coating process.
C. What Information Did Saturn Submit in Support of Its Petition?
In support of its petition Saturn has submitted laboratory analysis
of its WWTP sludge. The laboratory analysis submitted includes the
following: (1) Analysis performed on samples of its dewatered WWTP
sludge taken and analyzed by EPA: (2) analysis of the dewatered WWTP
sludge performed by Saturn on split samples provided to the facility by
EPA and (3) analysis of the dewatered WWTP sludge performed by Saturn
on samples taken by the facility.
The analysis performed by Saturn on the split samples of the WWTP
sludge provided to the facility by EPA was submitted for laboratory
testing for the entire 40 CFR Part 264 Appendix IX constituent list
(including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic
compounds (SVOCs), metals, and PCBs) and hexavalent chromium, TCLP
metals, cyanide, and total solids. Based on the laboratory data, data
validation results, and Saturn's communications with the EPA, Saturn
prepared a Sampling and Analysis Plan which was submitted to the EPA
and approved.
In accordance with the approved Sampling and Analysis Plan and to
support its petition, Saturn collected additional WWTP sludge samples
for laboratory testing. The samples were collected from six roll-off
containers representing waste generated at Saturn over a seven-week
period. The samples were analyzed as follows: (1) Samples for VOC
analyses (total and TCLP) were collected from six roll-off containers.
The first sample was analyzed for the 40 CFR part 264 Appendix IX VOC
constituent list (total and TCLP). VOCs (total and TCLP) detected in
the first sample were tested in the samples collected from the second
through the sixth roll-off containers. (2) Samples from the six roll-
off containers were analyzed for total and TCLP bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate. (3) Samples from the six roll-off containers were
analyzed for total and TCLP metals (antimony, arsenic, barium,
beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, thallium,
tin, vanadium, and zinc) and for hexavalent chromium. (4) Samples from
the six roll-off containers were analyzed for corrosivity, total and
TCLP cyanide, ignitability, sulfide, oil and grease, and total solids.
The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), SW-846 Method
1311, was used as the extraction procedure for testing the volatile and
semi-volatile constituents of concerns. Leachable metals were tested
using the Extraction Procedure for Oily Wastes (OWEP), SW-846 Method
1330A. 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). Oil and grease was
analyzed using SW-846 Method 9071B, total sulfide was tested using SW-
846 Method 9034, and total cyanide was performed using Method SW-846
Method 9012A.
Composite and grab samples of dewatered WWTP sludge were collected
in accordance with the approved Sampling and Analysis Plan on August
19, 2004 and submitted for laboratory testing. Upon receipt of the
laboratory testing results, the data was validated by a third party.
The maximum values of constituents detected in any sample of the WWTP
sludge or in a TCLP extract of the WWTP sludge are summarized in Table
1.
Table 1.--Maximum Total and TCLP Concentrations in the Dewatered WWTP Sludge and Corresponding Delisting Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum concentration Maximum allowable delisting Maximum
observed \1\ level (3,000 cubic yards) allowable
Constituent ---------------------------------------------------------------- groundwater
concentration
Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/l) Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/l) ([mu]g/l)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone......................... <7.5 1.7 141,000,000 171 3,750
---------------------------------
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate...... <25 <0.0050 51,400 0.146 1.50
---------------------------------
[[Page 51699]]
Metals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony........................ 56 <0.05 J 374,000 0.494 6.0
Arsenic......................... <50 <0.02 312,000 0.224 5.0
Barium.......................... 94 <0.35 10,400,000 100 2,000
Beryllium....................... 3.1 <0.029 16,200 0.998 4.0
Chromium........................ 1,310 J <0.16 10,300,000 5.0 100
Chromium (hexavalent)........... <4.2 NT 3,320 3.71 NA
Cobalt.......................... 3.6 <0.038 84,400,000 NA 2,250
Copper.......................... 91 0.25 56,300,000 21,800 1,300
Lead............................ 108 <0.19 500,000 5.0 15.0
Mercury......................... 0.47 <0.0006 1.82 0.195 2.00
Nickel.......................... 4,400 24.2 J 2,430,000 67.8 750
Thallium........................ <20 <0.026 2,140 0.211 2.00
Tin............................. <100 3.18 844,000,000 NA 22,500
Vanadium........................ 9.9 J <0.27 9,850,000 50.6 263
Zinc............................ 17,200 5.72 17,200,000 673 11,300
Cyanide......................... 0.52 <0.05 1,180,000 8.63 200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent found in any one sample and do not
necessarily represent the specific levels found in one sample.
< Not detected at the specified concentration.
NA Not applicable.
NT Not tested.
J Estimated Concentration.
III. EPA's Evaluation of Saturn's Petition
A. How Did the EPA Evaluate the Information Submitted?
In developing this proposal, the EPA considered the original
listing criteria and the additional factors required by the Hazard and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See Section 222 of HSWA, 42
U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)-(4). The EPA 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 concentrations of the constituents in the waste; (4) the tendency
of the hazardous constituents to migrate and to bioaccumulate; (5) its
persistence 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.
For this delisting determination, the EPA assumed that the WWTP
sludge would be disposed in a Subtitle D landfill. Consistent with
previous delistings, the EPA identified plausible exposure routes
(groundwater, surface water and air) for hazardous constituents present
in the petitioned waste based upon improper management of a Subtitle D
landfill. To evaluate the waste, the EPA used the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software program (DRAS), a Windows-based software tool, to
estimate the potential release of hazardous constituents from the
petitioned waste and to predict the risk associated with those
releases.
A detailed description of the DRAS program and revisions is
available at 65 FR 58015, 65 FR 59000, 65 FR 75879, and 67 FR 10341.
The DRAS uses EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration with
Transformation Products (EPACMTP) to predict the potential for release
of hazardous constituents to groundwater from landfilled wastes and
subsequent potential routes of exposure to a receptor. For a release to
groundwater, the EPA considered routes of exposure to a human receptor
from ingestion of contaminated groundwater, inhalation from groundwater
via showering and dermal contact while bathing. The DRAS program also
considers the surface water pathway from the potential erosion of waste
from runoff from an open landfill. It evaluates the potential risk to a
human receptor from potential ingestion of fish and potential ingestion
of drinking water. DRAS also considers potential releases of waste
particles and volatile emissions to air from the surface of an open
landfill. For a potential release to air, the EPA considered potential
risks from inhalation of particulates and absorption into the lungs,
ingestion of particulates eliminated from respiratory passages and
subsequently swallowed, air deposition of particulates and subsequent
ingestion of the soil/waste mixture, and inhalation of volatile
constituents.
In the DRAS model, the EPA used the maximum estimated waste volume
and the maximum reported total and leachate concentration as inputs to
estimate the potential constituent concentrations in the groundwater,
soil, surface water or air. The DRAS program back calculated a maximum
allowable concentration level that would not exceed protective levels
in both the waste and the leachate for each constituent at the annual
waste volume of 3,000 cubic yards.
B. What Did the EPA Conclude About This Waste?
After reviewing Saturn's manufacturing and wastewater treatment
processes, the EPA concluded that no other hazardous constituents of
concern, other than those for which the testing was performed, are
likely to be present or formed as reaction products or by-products in
Saturn's WWTP sludge. EPA also concluded on the basis of explanations
and analytical data provided by Saturn pursuant to 40 CFR 260.22, that
the WWTP sludge does not
[[Page 51700]]
exhibit the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity
(see 40 CFR 261.21, 261.22 and 261.23, respectively.)
The EPA compared the analytical results submitted by Saturn 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 WWTP sludge or the leachate from the sludge are
summarized in Table 1, above. All constituents of concern were within
levels. Table 1 also includes the maximum allowable levels in
groundwater at a potential receptor well, as evaluated by the DRAS.
These levels are the more conservative of either the Safety Drinking
Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) or the health-based value
calculated by DRAS based on the target cancer risk level of
10-6. For arsenic, the target cancer risk was set at
10-4 in consideration of the MCL and the potential for
natural occurrence. The maximum allowable groundwater concentration and
delisting level for arsenic correspond to a drinking water
concentration less than one half the current MCL of 10 [mu]g/l.
EPA also used the DRAS program to estimate the aggregate cancer
risk and hazard index of 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 Saturn WWTP
sludge met both of these criteria.
C. What Other Factors Did the EPA Consider in Its Evaluation?
During the evaluation of this petition, the EPA also considered the
potential impact of the hazardous constituents from WWTP sludge via
non-groundwater routes (i.e., air emissions and surface runoff).
In regard to potential airborne emissions, the EPA evaluated the
potential risk resulting from the unlikely scenario of airborne
exposure to hazardous constituents released from the WWTP sludge in an
open landfill. The results of this unlikely worst-case analysis
indicated that there is no substantial present or potential hazard to
human health and the environment from airborne emissions from the WWTP
sludge.
The EPA also considered the potential impact of releases of
hazardous constituents from the WWTP sludge via surface water runoff.
The EPA believes that containment structures at municipal solid waste
landfills can effectively control surface water runoff, as the Subtitle
D regulations (see 56 FR 50978, October 9, 1991) prohibit pollutant
discharges into surface waters. Furthermore, and in the unlikely event
of surface water runoff at municipal solid waste landfills, the
concentrations of any soluble hazardous constituents in runoff will
tend to be lower than the levels in the TCLP leachate analyses reported
in this proposal due to the aggressive acidic medium used in the TCLP
extraction. For these reasons, the EPA believes that contamination of
surface water through runoff from the waste disposal area is very
unlikely. Nevertheless, the EPA evaluated the potential impacts on
surface water if the dewatered WWTP sludge was released from a
municipal solid waste landfill through runoff and erosion. The
estimated levels of the hazardous constituents of concern in surface
water would be well below health-based levels for human health, as well
as below the EPA Chronic Water Quality Criteria for aquatic organisms
(US EPA, OWRS, 1987).
The EPA concluded that the WWTP sludge is not a present or
potential hazard to human health and the environment from airborne
emissions and surface water runoff.
IV. Proposal To Delist WWTP Sludge From Saturn's Automobile Assembly
Facility
A. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
Today the EPA is proposing to conditionally exclude or delist 3,000
cubic yards annually of WWTP sludge generated at Saturn's Spring Hill,
Tennessee, automotive assembly facility.
B. What Are the Terms for Disposal of Saturn's WWTP Sludge Pursuant to
This Exclusion?
Saturn must dispose of the WWTP sludge 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.
C. With What Conditions Must Saturn Comply for Its WWTP Sludge To Be
Delisted?
The petitioner, Saturn, must comply with the requirements in 40 CFR
part 261, Appendix IX, Table 1 as amended by this proposal. The text
below gives the rationale and details of those requirements.
(1) Delisting Levels:
Saturn must sample and analyze the dewatered WWTP sludge in
accordance with Paragraph (3) and 40 CFR part 261, Appendix IX, Table 1
to ensure that the criteria for delisting continues to be met. The
constituents for which Saturn must test the leachate from the dewatered
WWTP sludge are provided in Paragraph (7) and in 40 CFR part 261,
Appendix IX, Table 1. The EPA selected the constituents based upon the
descriptions of the manufacturing process used by Saturn, previous test
data provided for the waste, and the respective health-based levels
used in delisting decision-making.
To meet the conditions of this delisting, the constituent
concentrations in the leachate from the dewatered WWTP sludge must not
exceed the concentrations provided in Paragraph (7) and in 40 CFR part
261, Appendix IX, Table 1. The delisting levels represent the maximum
allowable concentrations in the leachate from the testing of the WWTP
sludge.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
Saturn will manage accumulated WWTP sludge in accordance with the
applicable regulations and continue to dispose of the WWTP sludge as a
hazardous waste until the first quarterly verification testing has been
completed. If the results of the first quarterly test indicate that no
constituent is present in the sludge at a concentration that exceeds
the delisting level, Saturn can manage and dispose of the sludge as a
nonhazardous waste. Holding the dewatered WWTP sludge until
characterization is complete will ensure that the waste is managed
properly.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements:
Saturn must complete a testing program to verify that the dewatered
WWTP sludge does not exceed the maximum delisting levels. If the EPA
determines that the data from the verification testing program exceeds
the maximum delisting levels, this exclusion does not apply to the
tested waste. The verification testing program operates on a quarterly
basis for one year, followed by testing on an annual basis.
The first part of the verification testing program consists of
testing the dewatered WWTP sludge for the constituents specified in
Paragraph (7) on a quarterly basis for a period of one year. The
quarterly testing will be performed by collecting and analyzing one
composite sample on a quarterly basis for one year. Each composite
sample will consist of four (4) grab samples collected from an
individual roll-off container. The first sample can be collected at any
time after EPA has
[[Page 51701]]
finalized this rule. The remaining three quarterly samples will be
collected at approximately ninety (90)-day intervals from the
collection of the first quarterly sample.
The second part of the verification testing program is the annual
testing of one composite sample (consisting of four grab samples from
one roll-off container) of dewatered WWTP sludge for the constituents
specified in Paragraph (7). The annual tests will be performed by
collecting a composite sample during the same month as the final
quarterly (first annual) sample was collected.
If the constituent concentrations in the dewatered WWTP sludge in
any roll-off container exceed the delisting levels, then Saturn must
dispose of the waste as hazardous. Saturn must submit the data obtained
from its quarterly and annual verification testing to EPA. If the data
exceeds the delisting criteria, then Saturn must notify the EPA
according to the requirements in Paragraph (6). After notification, EPA
will make a decision as to whether the reported information requires
further EPA action to protect human health and the environment.
This exclusion is effective upon publication in the Federal
Register but disposal of the WWTP sludge as a nonhazardous waste cannot
begin until the first quarterly verification testing has been completed
and the data has been submitted to EPA. If the quarterly or annual
verification testing is not performed, the dewatered WWTP sludge cannot
be disposed as a delisted waste until Saturn obtains the written
approval of the EPA.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions:
Paragraph (4) requires Saturn to notify EPA in writing if the
manufacturing process, the wastewater treatment process, or the
chemicals used in the processes significantly change, including but not
limited to the type, composition, and amount of waste generated. If
there is a significant change, Saturn must handle the WWTP sludge after
the process change as hazardous until Saturn has demonstrated to the
EPA that the waste continues to meet the delisting levels and that no
new hazardous constituents listed in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261
have been introduced and Saturn has received written approval from the
EPA.
(5) Data Submittals:
As indicated in Paragraph (3) above, Saturn is required to submit
the data obtained from its quarterly and annual verification testing to
the EPA. To document that Saturn is appropriately managing the
dewatered WWTP sludge, Saturn must also compile, summarize, and
maintain delisting records and analytical data on-site for a minimum
period of five years. Paragraph (5) requires Saturn to furnish the data
upon request for inspection by any employee or representative of the
EPA or the State of Tennessee.
If the proposed exclusion is made final, then it will apply only to
3,000 cubic yards per calendar year of dewatered WWTP sludge generated
at the Saturn facility after the first successful quarterly
verification test.
(6) Reopener:
The purpose of Paragraph (6) is to require Saturn to disclose new
or different information related to a condition at the facility or
disposal of the waste if it is pertinent to the delisting. Saturn must
also use this procedure if the waste sample in the annual testing fails
to meet the levels found in Paragraph (1). This provision will allow
the EPA to reevaluate the exclusion if a source provides new or
additional information to the EPA. The EPA will evaluate the
information on which it based the decision to see if it is still
correct, or if circumstances have changed so that the information is no
longer correct or would cause the EPA to deny the petition if
presented.
This provision expressly requires Saturn to report differing site
conditions or assumptions used in the petition in addition to failure
to meet the annual testing conditions within ten (10) days of
discovery. If the EPA discovers such information itself or from a third
party, it can act on it as appropriate. The language being proposed is
similar to those provisions found in RCRA regulations governing no-
migration petitions at Sec. 268.6.
(7) Notification Requirements:
In order to adequately track wastes that have been delisted, the
EPA is requiring that Saturn provide a one-time notification to any
State regulatory agency through which or to which the delisted waste is
being carried. Saturn must provide this notification within sixty (60)
days of commencing this activity.
D. 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--0.494; arsenic--0.224; total
chromium--3.71; lead--5.0; nickel--67.8; thallium--0.211; and zinc--
673.
E. What Happens if Saturn Is Unable To Meet the Terms and Conditions of
This Delisting?
If Saturn violates the terms and conditions established in the
exclusion, the EPA will initiate procedures to withdraw the exclusion.
Where there is an immediate threat to human health and the environment,
the EPA will evaluate the need for enforcement activities on a case-by-
case basis. The EPA expects Saturn to conduct the appropriate waste
analysis and comply with the criteria explained above in Paragraph (1)
of the exclusion.
V. Public Comments
A. How May Interested Parties Submit Comments?
The EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision.
Please send three copies of your comments. You should send two copies
to the Chief, North Section, RCRA Enforcement and Compliance Branch,
Waste Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Sam Nunn
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
You should also send a copy to Mr. Mike Apple, Director, Division of
Solid Waste Management, Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation, 5th Floor, L&C Tower, 401 Church Street, Nashville,
Tennessee 37243-1535. You should identify your comments at the top with
this regulatory docket number: R4DLP-0502-Saturn. You may submit your
comments electronically to Kristin Lippert at Lippert.kristin@epa.gov.
You should submit requests for a hearing to Narindar M. Kumar,
Chief, RCRA Enforcement and Compliance Branch, Waste Division, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal
Center, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
B. How May Interested Parties Review the Docket or Obtain Copies of the
Proposed Exclusion?
You may review the RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule at
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta
Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. It is
available for viewing in the EPA Freedom of Information Act Review Room
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. You may call (404) 562-8605 for appointments. The public may
copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the first one
hundred (100) pages, and at fifteen (15) cents per page for additional
copies.
[[Page 51702]]
VI. Regulatory Impact
Because EPA is issuing today's exclusion under the federal RCRA
delisting program, only states subject to federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This exclusion may not be effective in
states that have received EPA's authorization to make their own
delisting decisions.
Under Section 3009 of RCRA, EPA allows states to impose their own
non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's.
These more stringent requirements may include a provision that
prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the state.
The EPA urges petitioners to contact the state regulatory authority to
establish the status of their wastes under the state law.
The EPA has also authorized some states to administer a delisting
program in place of the federal program, that is, to make state
delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those
authorized states. If Saturn manages the WWTP sludge in any state with
delisting authorization, Saturn must obtain delisting authorization
from the state before it can manage the WWTP sludge as nonhazardous in
that state.
Under Executive Order 12866, the EPA must conduct an ``assessment
of the potential costs and benefits' for all ``significant'' regulatory
actions. The proposal to grant an exclusion is not significant, since
its effect, if promulgated, would be to reduce the overall costs and
economic impact of the EPA's hazardous waste management regulations.
This reduction would be achieved by excluding waste generated at a
specific facility from the EPA's lists of hazardous wastes, thus
enabling a facility to manage its waste as nonhazardous.
Because there is no additional impact from this proposed rule, this
proposal would not be a significant regulation, and no cost/benefit
assessment is required. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
also exempted this rule from the requirement for OMB review under
Section (6) of Executive Order 12866.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Sections 601-612,
whenever an agency is required to publish a general notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis which
describes the impact of the rule on small entities (that is, small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the
Administrator or delegated representative certifies that the rule will
not have any impact on small entities.
This rule, if promulgated, will not have an adverse economic impact
on small entities since its effect would be to reduce the overall costs
of the EPA's hazardous waste regulations and would be limited to one
facility. Accordingly, the EPA hereby certifies that this proposed
regulation, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation, therefore,
does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and record keeping requirements associated
with this proposed rule have been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980 (Pub. L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned
OMB Control Number 2050-0053.
IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995,
the EPA generally must prepare a written statement for rules with
Federal mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local,
and tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of
$100 million or more in any one year.
When such a statement is required for the EPA rules, under section
205 of the UMRA the EPA must identify and consider alternatives,
including the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The EPA must
select that alternative, unless the Administrator explains in the final
rule why it was not selected or it is inconsistent with law.
Before the EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, the EPA must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in
the development of the EPA's regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising them on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate for regulatory
purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon state, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector.
The EPA finds that this delisting decision is deregulatory in
nature and does not impose any enforceable duty on any State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. In addition, the proposed
delisting decision does not establish any regulatory requirements for
small governments and so does not require a small government agency
plan under UMRA section 203.
X. Executive Order 13045
The Executive Order 13045 is entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This order applies to any rule that the EPA determines (1) is
economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the EPA. This proposed rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because this is not an economically
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.
XI. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation
that is not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely
affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments.
If the mandate is unfunded, the EPA must provide to the Office of
Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of the EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation.
In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected and other
[[Page 51703]]
representatives of Indian tribal governments to have ``meaningful and
timely input'' in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities of Indian
tribal governments. This action does not involve or impose any
requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements
of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
XII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act, the EPA is directed to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (for example, materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices,
etc.) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies.
Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus
standards are not used by the EPA, the Act requires that the EPA
provide Congress, through the OMB, an explanation of the reasons for
not using such standards.
This rule does not establish any new technical standards and thus,
the EPA has no need to consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards in developing this final rule.
XIII. Executive Order 13132 Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999) requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, the EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or the EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law
unless the EPA consults with State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed regulation.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
a substantial direct effect on 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, because it affects only one facility.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Section 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: August 15, 2005.
Alan Farmer,
Acting Director, Waste Management Division, Region 4.
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 waste is
added in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Waste Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 1.--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Saturn Corporation.............. Spring Hill, TN................ Dewatered wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)
sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019)
generated at a maximum rate of 3,000 cubic
yards per calendar year. The sludge must be
disposed in a lined, Subtitle D landfill
with leachate collection that is licensed,
permitted, or otherwise authorized to accept
the delisted WWTP sludge in accordance with
40 CFR part 258. The exclusion becomes
effective on [insert publication date of the
final rule].
For the exclusion to be valid, Saturn must
implement a verification testing program
that meets the following conditions:
(1) Delisting Levels: The constituent
concentrations in an extract of the waste
must not exceed the following maximum
allowable concentrations in mg/l: antimony--
0.494; arsenic--0.224; total chromium--3.71;
lead--5.0; nickel--68; thallium--0.211; and
zinc--673. 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 Saturn's sludge
meet the delisting levels in this condition.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
(A) Saturn must accumulate the hazardous
waste dewatered WWTP sludge in accordance
with the applicable regulations of 40 CFR
262.34 and continue to dispose of the
dewatered WWTP sludge as hazardous waste.
[[Page 51704]]
(B) After the first quarterly verification
sampling event described in Condition (3)
has been completed and the laboratory data
demonstrates that no constituent is present
in the sample at a level which exceeds the
delisting levels set in Condition (1),
Saturn can manage and dispose of the
dewatered WWTP sludge as nonhazardous
according to all applicable solid waste
regulations.
(C) If constituent levels in any sample taken
by Saturn exceed any of the delisting levels
set in Condition (1), Saturn must do the
following:
(i) notify EPA in accordance with Condition
(6) and
(ii) manage and dispose the dewatered WWTP
sludge as hazardous waste generated under
Subtitle C of RCRA.
(3) Quarterly Testing Requirements: Upon this
exclusion becoming final, Saturn may perform
quarterly analytical testing by sampling and
analyzing the dewatered WWTP sludge as
follows:
(i) Collect one representative composite
sample (consisting of four grab samples) of
the hazardous waste dewatered WWTP sludge at
any time after EPA grants the final
delisting. In addition, collect the second,
third, and fourth quarterly samples at
approximately ninety (90)-day intervals
after EPA grants the final exclusion.
(ii) Analyze the samples for all constituents
listed in Condition (1). Any roll-offs from
which the composite sample is taken
exceeding the delisting levels listed in
Condition (1) must be disposed as hazardous
waste in a Subtitle C landfill. (iii) Within
forty-five (45) days after taking its first
quarterly sample, Saturn will report its
first quarterly analytical test data to EPA.
If levels of constituents measured in the
sample of the dewatered WWTP sludge do not
exceed the levels set forth in Condition (1)
of this exclusion, Saturn can manage and
dispose the nonhazardous dewatered WWTP
sludge according to all applicable solid
waste regulations.
(4) Annual Verification Testing: (i) If
Saturn completes the quarterly testing
specified in Condition (3) above, and no
sample contains a constituent with a level
which exceeds the limits set forth in
Condition (1), Saturn may begin annual
verification testing on an annual basis.
Saturn must collect and analyze one sample
of the WWTP sludge on an annual basis. as
follows: Saturn must test one representative
composite sample of the dewatered WWTP
sludge for all constituents listed in
Condition (1) at least once per calendar
year.
(ii) The sample collected for annual
verification testing shall be a
representative composite sample consisting
of four grab samples that will be collected
in accordance with the appropriate methods
described in Condition (1).
(iii) The sample for the annual testing for
the second and subsequent annual testing
events shall be collected within the same
calendar month as the first annual
verification sample.
(5) Changes in Operating Conditions: Saturn
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 Saturn in
writing that Saturn's sludge must be managed
as hazardous waste F019 until Saturn 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
Saturn has received written approval from
EPA. If EPA determines that the changes do
not result in additional constituents of
concern, EPA will notify Saturn, in writing,
that Saturn must verify that Saturn's sludge
continues to meet Condition (1) delisting
levels.
(6) Data Submittals: Saturn must submit the
data obtained through verification testing
at Saturn or as required by other conditions
of this rule to: information described
below. If Saturn fails to submit the
required data within the specified time or
maintain the required records on-site for
the specified time, the EPA, at its
