Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Proposed Exclusion, 76255-76260 [E6-21603]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Payments will be made to the U.S.
addressee by the U.S. Postal Service.
The addressee may waive their right to
payment in favor of the sender. Payment
in such cases will be made by the origin
administration.
*
*
*
*
*
[Revise title of 932 as follows:]
932 General Exceptions to Payment—
Registered Mail, and Insured Parcels,
and Ordinary Parcels
*
*
*
*
*
[Revise title of 933 by changing
‘‘Parcel Post’’ to ‘‘Parcels.’’]
933 Payments for Insured Parcels and
Ordinary Parcels
933.1
General Provisions
Insured Parcels
Indemnity may be paid for loss,
rifling, or damage, based on the actual
value of articles at the time and place of
mailing.
933.12
934.12 Parcels Erroneously Accepted
as Registered Mail
If a parcel is accepted in error as
registered mail, indemnity may be paid
under the conditions in 934.2.
934.13
Indemnity Will Not Be Paid
[Revise third sentence of item d(3) to
read as follows:]
In addition to the general exceptions
to payment described in 932, indemnity
will not be paid:
d. For parcels that:
(3) Were not posted in the manner
prescribed. In the event of loss, rifling,
or damage of mail erroneously accepted
for insurance to other countries, limited
indemnity may be paid as if it had been
addressed to a domestic destination, i.e.
on the basis of the indemnity limits for
domestic insured mail. If postage was
erroneously collected at other than a
parcel rate, but the parcel was otherwise
properly accepted for insurance,
indemnity may be paid pursuant to the
general provisions of this section and
the special provisions of 933.2.
*
*
*
*
*
[Revise titles of 933.13 and 933.14 by
changing ‘‘Parcel Post’’ to ‘‘Parcels.’’]
Indemnity Will Not Be Paid
*
*
*
*
*
[Revise item b to read as follows:]
b. To anyone in the United States,
other than the addressee, for items
delivered in damaged condition or with
missing contents. The addressee may
waive payment, in writing, in favor of
the sender.
*
*
*
*
*
934.2
[Revise title and text of 933.11 as
follows:]
933.11
934.12 Parcel Post Erroneously
Accepted
Special Provisions
Postage Refunds
[Revise 941 by changing ‘‘letter-post’’
and ‘‘parcel post’’ to ‘‘First-Class Mail
International’’ and Priority Mail
International’’ throughout.]
*
*
*
*
*
[Revise 942 by changing ‘‘Global
Express Mail’’ and ‘‘EMS’’ to ‘‘Express
Mail International’’ throughout.]
*
*
*
*
*
942 Postage Refunds for Express Mail
International Items
*
*
*
*
*
942.5 Unallowable Refund—Express
Mail International With No Service
Guarantee
*
*
942.53
*
*
*
Consequential Damages
933.13 Ordinary Parcel Post—
Indemnity Limitations
[Add new last sentence to 942.53 as
follows:]
See DMM 609 and 503, and IMM
221.3 and 935.2 for limitations of
indemnity coverage.
*
943
*
*
*
*
Processing Refund Applications
943.1 Items Originating in the United
States
*
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
933.14 Ordinary Parcel Post—
Exceptions to Indemnity
*
934
Payments for Registered Mail
[Revise first sentence 943.1 as
follows:]
Requests for refunds for ordinary
letters, registered mail, insured parcels,
and ordinary parcels originating in the
United States, and Express Mail
International with Guarantee are
handled as follows:* * *
*
*
*
[Revise title and text of 934.12 as
follows:]
934.1
*
General Provisions
*
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
*
*
17:15 Dec 19, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
[Revise item b by deleting ‘‘Recorded
Delivery’’ and changing ‘‘parcel post’’ to
‘‘parcel.’’]
[Revise item c by changing ‘‘EMS’’ to
‘‘Express Mail International.’’]
*
*
*
*
*
We will publish an appropriate
amendment to 39 CFR part 20 to reflect
these changes if our proposal is
adopted.
Neva R. Watson,
Attorney, Legislative.
[FR Doc. E6–21750 Filed 12–19–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR PART 261
[Revise amount payable in 934.2 to
‘‘$43.73.’’]
*
*
*
*
*
[Revise 935 by changing ‘‘Global
Express Mail’’ and ‘‘Global Express Mail
(EMS)’’ to ‘‘Express Mail International’’
throughout.]
*
*
*
*
*
940
76255
[EPA–R07–RCRA–2006–0923; FRL–8258–7]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste Proposed Exclusion
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for
comment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ‘‘the Agency’’
or ‘‘we’’ in this preamble) is proposing
to grant a petition to exclude or ‘‘delist’’
wastewater treatment sludge from
conversion coating on aluminum
generated by the Ford Motor Company
(Ford) Kansas City Assembly Plant
(KCAP) in Claycomo, Missouri from the
requirements of hazardous waste
regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
This proposed exclusion, if finalized,
conditionally excludes the petitioned
waste from the requirements of
hazardous waste regulations under
RCRA.
This petition was evaluated in a
manner similar to the expedited process
developed as a special project in
conjunction with the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) for delisting similar wastes
generated by a similar manufacturing
process. See 76 FR 10341, March 7,
2002. Based on an evaluation of wastespecific information provided by Ford,
we have tentatively concluded that the
petitioned waste from KCAP is
nonhazardous with respect to the
original listing criteria and that there are
no other factors which would cause the
waste to be hazardous. This exclusion,
if finalized, would be valid only when
the sludge is disposed of in a Subtitle
D landfill which is permitted, licensed,
or registered by a State to manage
industrial solid waste.
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
76256
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules
We will accept public comments
on this proposed rule until February 5,
2007. We will stamp comments
postmarked after the close of the
comment period as ‘‘late.’’ These ‘‘late’’
comments may not be considered in
formulating a final decision. Any person
may request a hearing on this proposed
decision by filing a request with Carol
Kather, Acting Director, Air, RCRA and
Toxics Division, Environmental
Protection Agency Region 7, 901 N. 5th
St., Kansas City, Kansas, 66208. Your
request for a hearing must reach EPA by
January 4, 2007. The request must
contain the information prescribed in
Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (40
CFR) 260.20(d).
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
RCRA–2006–0923, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: herstowski.ken@epa.gov
3. Mail: Ken Herstowski,
Environmental Protection Agency,
RCRA Corrective Action and Permit
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas
City, Kansas 66101.
4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver
your comments to: Ken Herstowski,
Environmental Protection Agency,
RCRA Corrective Action and Permit
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas
City, Kansas 66101.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R07–RCRA–2006–
0923. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
DATES:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:15 Dec 19, 2006
Jkt 211001
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket. All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
RCRA Corrective Action and Permits
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas
City, Kansas. The hard copy RCRA
regulatory docket for this proposed rule,
EPA–R07–RCRA–2006–0923, is
available for viewing from 8 a.m. to 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. The public may copy
material from the regulatory docket at
$0.15 per page. EPA requests that you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The
interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an
appointment with the office at least 24
hours in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further technical information
concerning this document or for
appointments to view the docket,
contact Kenneth Herstowski at the
Environmental Protection Agency,
RCRA Corrective Action and Permit
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas
City, Kansas 66101, by calling 913–551–
7631 or by e-mail at
herstowski.ken@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Background
A. What is a delisting petition?
B. What regulations allow a waste to be
delisted?
II. Ford’s Petition To Delist Waste From the
Kansas City Assembly Plant
A. How is the petitioned waste generated?
B. What is the process for delisting F019
from zinc phosphating operations at
automobile and light truck assembly
plants?
C. What information did Ford submit in
support of its petition?
III. EPA’s Evaluation of This Petition
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
A. How did EPA evaluate the information
submitted?
B. What did EPA conclude about this
waste?
IV. Proposal To Delist Waste From Kansas
City Assembly Plant
A. What is EPA proposing?
B. What are the terms of this exclusion?
C. What are the maximum allowable
concentrations of hazardous constituents
in the waste?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
A. What is a delisting petition?
A delisting petition is a request from
a generator to exclude waste from the
list of hazardous wastes under RCRA
regulations. In a delisting petition, the
petitioner must show that waste
generated at a particular facility does
not meet any of the criteria for which
EPA listed the waste as set forth in 40
CFR 261.11 and the background
document for the waste. In addition, a
petitioner must demonstrate that the
waste does not exhibit any of the
hazardous waste characteristics (that is,
ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and
toxicity) and must present sufficient
information for us to decide whether
factors other than those for which the
waste was listed warrant retaining it as
a hazardous waste. (See 40 CFR 260.22,
42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 6921(f)
and the background document for a
listed waste.)
A generator remains obligated under
RCRA to confirm that its waste remains
nonhazardous based on the hazardous
waste characteristics even if EPA has
‘‘delisted’’ the waste and to ensure that
future generated waste meets the
conditions set.
B. What regulations allow a waste to be
delisted?
Under 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22, and 42
U.S.C. 6921(f), a facility may petition
the EPA to remove its waste from the
lists of hazardous wastes contained in
40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically,
40 CFR 260.20 allows any person to
petition the Administrator to modify or
revoke any provision of parts 260
through 266, 268, and 273 of 40 CFR.
II. Ford’s Petition To Delist Waste From
the Kansas City Assembly Plant
A. How is the petitioned wasted
generated?
Ford is petitioning to exclude
wastewater treatment sludge resulting
from a conversion coating process on
truck bodies which have aluminum
components. The truck bodies are
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
76257
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules
immersed in a zinc phosphate bath
which applies a conversion coating on
the surface of the metal. The rinses and
overflows from the conversion coating
process comingle with wastewaters from
cleaning and rinsing operations which
may include alkaline cleaners,
surfactants, organic detergents and rinse
conditioners. After the zinc phosphating
bath, the truck bodies are subjected to
an electrocoating process and spray
painting. Overflows and rinse water
from the electrocoating process and
from the paint booths combine with the
wastewater from the conversion coating
before entering the wastewater
treatment plant. When treated, the
wastewater from the conversion coating
on aluminum causes all the sludge
generated from these wastewaters to be
a listed waste, F019.
In the wastewater treatment plant,
large particles are screened out and the
wastewater is sent to various thickeners
and clarifier tanks where water and
solids are further separated. The pH of
the wastewater may be adjusted and
flocculents and coagulants may be
added to facilitate the thickening
process. The solids which settle in the
thickeners and clarifiers are dewatered
in a filter press and the resultant F019
filter cake drops into a roll off box for
disposal.
The zinc phosphating process used
today does not contain hexavalent
chromium or cyanide for which F019
was originally listed, but trivalent
chromium, nickel, and zinc may be
present in the wastewater and in the
sludge. Other hazardous constituents
such as organic solvents, formaldehyde
or additional metals could also be in the
waste stream. Before a waste can be
delisted, the petitioner must
demonstrate that there are no hazardous
constituents in the sludge from other
operations in the plant at levels of
concern and that there are no other
factors that might cause the waste to be
hazardous. Ford believes that its sludge
does not contain the constituents for
which F019 was listed and that there are
no other constituents or factors that
would cause the waste to remain
hazardous.
B. What is the process for delisting F019
from zinc phospating operations at
automobile and light truck assembly
plants?
The zinc phosphating process used by
Ford at KCAP is substantially similar to
the process used at most automobile and
light truck assembly plants in
conversion coating steel and aluminum.
A number of automobile and light truck
assembly plants have been granted
hazardous waste exclusions as a result
of a special expedited delisting project
established in a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between EPA
Region 5 and MDEQ (67 FR 10341,
March 7, 2002, and 68 FR 44652, July
30, 2003). These facilities were able to
take advantage of a common sampling
approach and expedited rulemaking
procedure mainly due to the similarity
of the wastes and processes generating
the waste. Ford certified that the process
generating the filter cake at KCAP is
consistent with the process described in
the MOU for expedited delistings.
Using available historical data and
other information, the expedited process
identified 70 constituents which might
be of concern in the F019 waste
generated at automobile and light truck
assembly plants, and a Sampling and
Analysis Plan was developed
specifically for testing this waste. EPA
agreed to allow Ford to use the same
Sampling and Analysis Plan and the
same list of constituents of concern to
demonstrate that the levels of
constituents in the waste at KCAP are
below the levels of concern that could
pose a threat to human health or the
environment when the waste is
disposed in a nonhazardous landfill.
C. What information did Ford submit in
support of its petition?
To support its exclusion
demonstration, Ford collected six
samples representing waste generated at
Maximum concentration observed
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Constituent
Total
(mg/kg)
Barium ..................................................................
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ....................................
Chromium ............................................................
Cresol, p- .............................................................
Cyanide ................................................................
Dinitrotoluene, 2,4- ..............................................
Ethylbenzene .......................................................
Formaldehyde ......................................................
Mercury ................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:07 Dec 19, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
TCLP
(mg/l)
220
18
40
8.2
0.86
<0.001
1.6
4.9
0.2
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Maximum allowable delisting level
(2,000 cubic yards)
Total
(mg/kg)
<0.05
0.0036
<0.18
0.4
<0.05
0.00028
0.06
0.24
<0.0007
Sfmt 4702
KCAP over six weeks. All sampling was
done in accordance with the Sampling
and Analysis Plan developed for the
expedited delisting project but modified
to eliminate multiple sampling events or
long term storage of full roll-off boxes.
A representative amount of sludge was
collected each week for six weeks
starting with the week of November 1,
2005 and continuing through the week
of December 12, 2005. The sludge for
each week was placed in a separate 55
gallon drum, and on December 19, 2005,
composite and grab samples were
collected from all drums. In accordance
with the Sampling and Analysis Plan,
each sample was analyzed for: (1) Total
volatile organic compound (VOC)
analysis using SW–846 8260B with
formaldehyde analysis using SW–846
8315A, semivolatile organic compound
(SVOC) analysis using SW–846 8270C;
(2) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP), Method 1311 in Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods (SW–846)
for the inorganic, VOC and SVOC
constituents of concern; (3) oil and
grease analysis using SW–846 1664, (4)
total metals using SW–846 6010B or
6020 with mercury analysis using SW–
846 7471A; (5) total constituent analysis
for sulfide, SW–846 Method 9034 and
reactive analysis for sulfide, SW–846
Section 7.3; and (6) total constituent
analysis for cyanide, SW–846 Method
9012A and reactive analysis for cyanide,
SW–846 Section 7.3. In addition, the pH
of each sample was measured using
SW–846 Method 9045C and a
determination was made that the waste
was not ignitable, corrosive or reactive
(see 40 CFR 261.21–261.23). The data
submitted included the appropriate
quality assurance/quality control
information and was validated by an
independent third party as required in
the Sampling and Analysis Plan. The
maximum values of constituents
detected in any sample of the
wastewater treatment sludge or in a
TCLP extract of that sludge are
summarized in the table below.
TCLP
(mg/l)
NA
NA
7.60x10 5
NA
NA
2.29x10 5
NA
6.88x10 3
1.04x10 1
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
1.00x10 2
3.65x10 ¥1
5.00x10 0
1.14x10 1
1.15x10 1
1.30x10 ¥1
4.26x10 1
3.43x10 2
1.55x10 ¥1
76258
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Maximum concentration observed
Constituent
Total
(mg/kg)
Napthalene ...........................................................
Nickel ...................................................................
Sulfides ................................................................
Thallium ...............................................................
Tin ........................................................................
Toluene ................................................................
Xylenes (total) ......................................................
Zinc ......................................................................
TCLP
(mg/l)
<0.001
3000
230
21
120
<0.001
7.9
7900
Maximum allowable delisting level
(2,000 cubic yards)
Total
(mg/kg)
0.011
8.7
NA
<0.02
3.1
0.0025
0.33
0.74
TCLP
(mg/l)
NA
NA
NA
1.16x10 5
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.28x10 ¥1
9.05x10 1
NA
2.82x10 ¥1
7.21x10 2
6.08x10 1
1.89x10 1
8.98x10 2
<—Not detected at the specified concentration.
NA—The DRAS program did not calculate a delisting level for this constituent, or the delisting level was higher than those levels expected to
be found in the waste. In the event high levels are discovered later, the constituent will be evaluated and a delisting level set in accordance with
the methodology used to set delisting levels for the other constituents.
mg/kg—milligrams per kilogram.
mg/l—milligrams per liter.
These levels represent the highest
constituent concentration found in any
one sample and do not necessarily
represent the specific levels found in a
single sample.
2000; 65 FR 75897, December 5, 2000;
and 67 FR 10341, March 7, 2002.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of This Petition
EPA compared the analytical results
submitted by KCAP to the maximum
allowable levels calculated by the DRAS
for an annual volume of 2,000 cubic
yards. The maximum allowable levels
for constituents detected in the waste or
the waste leachate are summarized in
the table above. All constituents
compared favorably to the allowable
levels.
The table also includes the maximum
allowable levels in groundwater at a
potential receptor well, as evaluated by
DRAS. These levels are the more
conservative of either the Safe Drinking
Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL) or the health-based value
calculated by DRAS based on the target
cancer risk level of 1×10 ¥6 or the target
hazard quotient of one.
EPA also used the DRAS program to
estimate the aggregate cancer risk and
hazard index for constituents detected
in the waste. The aggregate cancer risk
is the cumulative total of all individual
constituent cancer risks. The hazard
index is a similar cumulative total of
non-cancer effects. The target aggregate
cancer risk is 1×10 ¥5 and the target
hazard index is one. The wastewater
treatment sludge at KCAP met both of
these criteria.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
A. How did EPA evaluate the
information submitted?
In developing this proposal, we
considered the original listing criteria
and evaluated additional factors
required by the Hazardous and Solid
Wastes Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
See section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)–(4).
We evaluated the petitioned waste
against the listing criteria and factors
cited in 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2) and (3).
These factors include: (1) Whether the
waste is considered acutely toxic; (2) the
toxicity of the constituents; (3) the
concentration of the constituents in the
waste; (4) the tendency of the hazardous
constituents to migrate and to
bioaccumulate; (5) persistence of these
constituents in the environment once
released from the waste; (6) plausible
and specific types of management of the
petitioned waste; (7) the quantity of
waste produced; and (8) waste
variability.
EPA identified plausible exposure
routes (ground water, surface water, air)
for hazardous constituents released from
the waste in an improperly managed
Subtitle D landfill. To evaluate the
waste, we used the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software program (DRAS), a
Windows based software tool, to
estimate the potential release of
hazardous constituents from the waste
and to predict the risk associated with
those releases. For a detailed
description of the DRAS program and
revisions see: 65 FR 58015, September
27, 2000; 65 FR 75637, December 4,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:07 Dec 19, 2006
Jkt 211001
B. What did EPA conclude about this
waste?
IV. Proposal To Delist Waste From
Kansas City Assembly
A. What is EPA proposing?
Today the EPA is proposing to
conditionally exclude or delist 2,000
cubic yards annually of wastewater
treatment sludge generated at KCAP
from conversion coating on aluminum.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
B. What are the terms of this exclusion?
Ford must dispose of the KCAP waste
in a lined Subtitle D landfill which is
permitted, licensed, or registered by a
state to manage industrial waste. Ford
must verify on a quarterly basis that the
concentrations of the constituents of
concern in the KCAP sludge do not
exceed the allowable levels set forth in
this exclusion. The list of constituents
for verification is based on the
concentration and frequency of
occurrence of constituents of concern in
Ford’s KCAP sludge and in wastes
generated by the majority of facilities
participating in the expedited process to
delist F019. This exclusion applies only
to a maximum annual volume of 2,000
cubic yards and is effective only if all
conditions contained in this rule are
satisfied.
C. 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): barium—100;
chromium—5; mercury—0.155; nickel—
90; thallium—0.282; zinc—898;
cyanides—11.5; ethyl benzene—42.6;
toluene—60.8; total xylenes—18.9;
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate—0.365; pcresol—11.4; 2,4-dinitrotoluene—0.13;
formaldehyde—343; and napthalene—
0.728. The total concentrations in the
waste of the following constituents must
not exceed the following levels (mg/kg):
chromium 760000; mercury—10.4;
thallium—116000; 2,4-dinitrotoluene—
100000; and formaldehyde—6880.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order. It
has been determined that this rule is not
a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
the terms of Executive Order 12866 and
therefore is not a regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
because it applies to a particular facility
only.
Because this rule is of particular
applicability relating to a particular
facility and does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, it is not
subject to the regulatory flexibility
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
This rule is not subject to sections
202, 203, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
(Pub. L. 104–4) because this rule will
affect only a particular facility.
Therefore, EPA has determined that this
rule does not contain a Federal mandate
that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector in any one year.
Because this rule will affect only a
particular facility, this final rule does
not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule. Similarly, because this rule
will affect only a particular facility, this
final rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule.
This rule also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045,‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe
the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The
basis for this belief is that the Agency
used the DRAS program, which
considers health and safety risks to
infants and children, to calculate the
maximum allowable concentrations for
this rule.
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is
not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
This rule does not involve technical
standards; thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
76259
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not
apply.
As required by section 3 of Executive
Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this rule, EPA has taken the necessary
steps to eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,
and provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous
waste, Recycling, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f). Authority for this action has been
delegated to the Regional Administrator (61
FR 32798, June 25, 1996).
Dated: November 16, 2006.
John B. Askew,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
6922, and 6938.
2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of part
261 the following wastestream is added
in alphabetical order by facility to read
as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22
TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
Facility
Address
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
*
Ford Motor Company
Kansas City Assembly Plant.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Waste description
*
*
*
*
*
*
Claycomo, Missouri ..... Wastewater treatment sludge, F019, that is generated at the Ford Motor Company (Ford)
Kansas City Assembly Plant (KCAP) at a maximum annual rate of 2,000 cubic yards per
year. The sludge must be disposed of in a lined landfill with leachate collection, which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized to accept the delisted wastewater treatment
sludge in accordance with 40 CFR part 258. The exclusion becomes effective as of (insert
final publication date).
1. Delisting Levels: (a) The concentrations in a TCLP extract of the waste measured in any
sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/L): barium—100; chromium—5; mercury—
0.155; nickel—90; thallium—0.282; zinc—898; cyanides—11.5; ethyl benzene—42.6; toluene—60.8; total xylenes—18.9; bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate—0.365; p-cresol—11.4; 2,4-dinitrotoluene—0.13; formaldehyde—343; and napthalene—.728;
(b) The total concentrations measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels
(mg/kg): chromium 760000; mercury—10.4; thallium—116000; 2,4-dinitrotoluene—100000;
and formaldehyde—6880.
2. Quarterly Verification Testing: To verify that the waste does not exceed the specified
delisting levels, Ford must collect and analyze one representative sample of KCAP’s
sludge on a quarterly basis.
3. Changes in Operating Conditions: Ford must notify the EPA in writing if the manufacturing
process, the chemicals used in the manufacturing process, the treatment process, or the
chemicals used in the treatment process at KCAP significantly change. Ford must handle
wastes generated at KCAP after the process change as hazardous until it has demonstrated that the waste continues to meet the delisting levels and that no new hazardous
constituents listed in appendix VIII of part 261 have been introduced and Ford has received written approval from EPA.
18:52 Dec 19, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
76260
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
4. Data Submittals: Ford must submit the data obtained through verification testing at KCAP
or as required by other conditions of this rule to EPA Region 7, Air, RCRA and Toxics Division, 901 N. 5th, Kansas City, Kansas, 66208. The quarterly verification data and certification of proper disposal must be submitted annually upon the anniversary of the effective
date of this exclusion. Ford must compile, summarize, and maintain at KCAP records of
operating conditions and analytical data for a minimum of five years. Ford must make
these records available for inspection. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of
the certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).
5. Reopener Language—(a) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, Ford possesses
or is otherwise made aware of any data (including but not limited to leachate data or
groundwater monitoring data) relevant to the delisted waste at KCAP indicating that any
constituent is at a level in the leachate higher than the specified delisting level, or is in the
groundwater at a concentration higher than the maximum allowable groundwater concentration in paragraph (e), then Ford must report such data in writing to the Regional Administrator within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data.
(b) Based on the information described in paragraph (a) and any other information received
from any source, the Regional Administrator will make a preliminary determination as to
whether the reported information requires Agency action to protect human health or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment.
(c) If the Regional Administrator determines that the reported information does require Agency action, the Regional Administrator will notify Ford in writing of the actions the Regional
Administrator believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The
notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing Ford
with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed Agency action is not
necessary or to suggest an alternative action. Ford shall have 30 days from the date of the
Regional Administrator’s notice to present the information.
(d) If after 30 days Ford presents no further information, the Regional Administrator will issue
a final written determination describing the Agency actions that are necessary to protect
human health or the environment. Any required action described in the Regional Administrator’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Regional Administrator provides otherwise.
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E6–21603 Filed 12–19–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
44 CFR Part 67
[Docket No. FEMA–D–7680]
Proposed Flood Elevation
Determinations
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Technical information or
comments are requested on the
proposed Base (1% annual chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed
BFEs modifications for the communities
listed below. The BFEs are the basis for
the floodplain management measures
that the community is required either to
adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to qualify or
remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:52 Dec 19, 2006
Jkt 211001
*
*
The comment period is ninety
(90) days following the second
publication of this proposed rule in a
newspaper of local circulation in each
community.
ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each
community are available for inspection
at the office of the Chief Executive
Officer of each community. The
respective addresses are listed in the
table below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering
Management Section, Mitigation
Division, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3151.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) proposes to make
determinations of BFEs and modified
BFEs for each community listed below,
in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973,
42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed BFEs and modified
BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR
60.3, are the minimum that are required.
They should not be construed to mean
that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more
stringent in their floodplain
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
*
management requirements. The
community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own, or
pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State or regional entities. These
proposed elevations are used to meet
the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are also
used to calculate the appropriate flood
insurance premium rates for new
buildings built after these elevations are
made final, and for the contents in these
buildings.
National Environmental Policy Act.
This proposed rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44
CFR part 10, Environmental
Consideration. An environmental
impact assessment has not been
prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood
elevation determinations are not within
the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.
Regulatory Classification. This
proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of
September 30, 1993, Regulatory
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism.
This proposed rule involves no policies
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76255-76260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-21603]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR PART 261
[EPA-R07-RCRA-2006-0923; FRL-8258-7]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste Proposed Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ``the Agency'' or ``we'' in this preamble) is
proposing to grant a petition to exclude or ``delist'' wastewater
treatment sludge from conversion coating on aluminum generated by the
Ford Motor Company (Ford) Kansas City Assembly Plant (KCAP) in
Claycomo, Missouri from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This proposed
exclusion, if finalized, conditionally excludes the petitioned waste
from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under RCRA.
This petition was evaluated in a manner similar to the expedited
process developed as a special project in conjunction with the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for delisting similar wastes
generated by a similar manufacturing process. See 76 FR 10341, March 7,
2002. Based on an evaluation of waste-specific information provided by
Ford, we have tentatively concluded that the petitioned waste from KCAP
is nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria and that
there are no other factors which would cause the waste to be hazardous.
This exclusion, if finalized, would be valid only when the sludge is
disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or
registered by a State to manage industrial solid waste.
[[Page 76256]]
DATES: We will accept public comments on this proposed rule until
February 5, 2007. We will stamp comments postmarked after the close of
the comment period as ``late.'' These ``late'' comments may not be
considered in formulating a final decision. Any person may request a
hearing on this proposed decision by filing a request with Carol
Kather, Acting Director, Air, RCRA and Toxics Division, Environmental
Protection Agency Region 7, 901 N. 5th St., Kansas City, Kansas, 66208.
Your request for a hearing must reach EPA by January 4, 2007. The
request must contain the information prescribed in Title 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (40 CFR) 260.20(d).
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
RCRA-2006-0923, by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: herstowski.ken@epa.gov
3. Mail: Ken Herstowski, Environmental Protection Agency, RCRA
Corrective Action and Permit Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Ken
Herstowski, Environmental Protection Agency, RCRA Corrective Action and
Permit Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-RCRA-
2006-0923. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket. All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, RCRA Corrective Action and Permits Branch, 901 North
5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas. The hard copy RCRA regulatory docket
for this proposed rule, EPA-R07-RCRA-2006-0923, is available for
viewing from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. The public may copy material from the regulatory docket at
$0.15 per page. EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make
an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further technical information
concerning this document or for appointments to view the docket,
contact Kenneth Herstowski at the Environmental Protection Agency, RCRA
Corrective Action and Permit Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101, by calling 913-551-7631 or by e-mail at
herstowski.ken@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Background
A. What is a delisting petition?
B. What regulations allow a waste to be delisted?
II. Ford's Petition To Delist Waste From the Kansas City Assembly
Plant
A. How is the petitioned waste generated?
B. What is the process for delisting F019 from zinc phosphating
operations at automobile and light truck assembly plants?
C. What information did Ford submit in support of its petition?
III. EPA's Evaluation of This Petition
A. How did EPA evaluate the information submitted?
B. What did EPA conclude about this waste?
IV. Proposal To Delist Waste From Kansas City Assembly Plant
A. What is EPA proposing?
B. What are the terms of this exclusion?
C. What are the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the waste?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA.
A. What is a delisting petition?
A delisting petition is a request from a generator to exclude waste
from the list of hazardous wastes under RCRA regulations. In a
delisting petition, the petitioner must show that waste generated at a
particular facility does not meet any of the criteria for which EPA
listed the waste as set forth in 40 CFR 261.11 and the background
document for the waste. In addition, a petitioner must demonstrate that
the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics
(that is, ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and must
present sufficient information for us to decide whether factors other
than those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a
hazardous waste. (See 40 CFR 260.22, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.)
6921(f) and the background document for a listed waste.)
A generator remains obligated under RCRA to confirm that its waste
remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics even
if EPA has ``delisted'' the waste and to ensure that future generated
waste meets the conditions set.
B. What regulations allow a waste to be delisted?
Under 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22, and 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), a facility may
petition the EPA to remove its waste from the lists of hazardous wastes
contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, 40 CFR 260.20
allows any person to petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any
provision of parts 260 through 266, 268, and 273 of 40 CFR.
II. Ford's Petition To Delist Waste From the Kansas City Assembly Plant
A. How is the petitioned wasted generated?
Ford is petitioning to exclude wastewater treatment sludge
resulting from a conversion coating process on truck bodies which have
aluminum components. The truck bodies are
[[Page 76257]]
immersed in a zinc phosphate bath which applies a conversion coating on
the surface of the metal. The rinses and overflows from the conversion
coating process comingle with wastewaters from cleaning and rinsing
operations which may include alkaline cleaners, surfactants, organic
detergents and rinse conditioners. After the zinc phosphating bath, the
truck bodies are subjected to an electrocoating process and spray
painting. Overflows and rinse water from the electrocoating process and
from the paint booths combine with the wastewater from the conversion
coating before entering the wastewater treatment plant. When treated,
the wastewater from the conversion coating on aluminum causes all the
sludge generated from these wastewaters to be a listed waste, F019.
In the wastewater treatment plant, large particles are screened out
and the wastewater is sent to various thickeners and clarifier tanks
where water and solids are further separated. The pH of the wastewater
may be adjusted and flocculents and coagulants may be added to
facilitate the thickening process. The solids which settle in the
thickeners and clarifiers are dewatered in a filter press and the
resultant F019 filter cake drops into a roll off box for disposal.
The zinc phosphating process used today does not contain hexavalent
chromium or cyanide for which F019 was originally listed, but trivalent
chromium, nickel, and zinc may be present in the wastewater and in the
sludge. Other hazardous constituents such as organic solvents,
formaldehyde or additional metals could also be in the waste stream.
Before a waste can be delisted, the petitioner must demonstrate that
there are no hazardous constituents in the sludge from other operations
in the plant at levels of concern and that there are no other factors
that might cause the waste to be hazardous. Ford believes that its
sludge does not contain the constituents for which F019 was listed and
that there are no other constituents or factors that would cause the
waste to remain hazardous.
B. What is the process for delisting F019 from zinc phospating
operations at automobile and light truck assembly plants?
The zinc phosphating process used by Ford at KCAP is substantially
similar to the process used at most automobile and light truck assembly
plants in conversion coating steel and aluminum. A number of automobile
and light truck assembly plants have been granted hazardous waste
exclusions as a result of a special expedited delisting project
established in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA Region 5
and MDEQ (67 FR 10341, March 7, 2002, and 68 FR 44652, July 30, 2003).
These facilities were able to take advantage of a common sampling
approach and expedited rulemaking procedure mainly due to the
similarity of the wastes and processes generating the waste. Ford
certified that the process generating the filter cake at KCAP is
consistent with the process described in the MOU for expedited
delistings.
Using available historical data and other information, the
expedited process identified 70 constituents which might be of concern
in the F019 waste generated at automobile and light truck assembly
plants, and a Sampling and Analysis Plan was developed specifically for
testing this waste. EPA agreed to allow Ford to use the same Sampling
and Analysis Plan and the same list of constituents of concern to
demonstrate that the levels of constituents in the waste at KCAP are
below the levels of concern that could pose a threat to human health or
the environment when the waste is disposed in a nonhazardous landfill.
C. What information did Ford submit in support of its petition?
To support its exclusion demonstration, Ford collected six samples
representing waste generated at KCAP over six weeks. All sampling was
done in accordance with the Sampling and Analysis Plan developed for
the expedited delisting project but modified to eliminate multiple
sampling events or long term storage of full roll-off boxes. A
representative amount of sludge was collected each week for six weeks
starting with the week of November 1, 2005 and continuing through the
week of December 12, 2005. The sludge for each week was placed in a
separate 55 gallon drum, and on December 19, 2005, composite and grab
samples were collected from all drums. In accordance with the Sampling
and Analysis Plan, each sample was analyzed for: (1) Total volatile
organic compound (VOC) analysis using SW-846 8260B with formaldehyde
analysis using SW-846 8315A, semivolatile organic compound (SVOC)
analysis using SW-846 8270C; (2) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP), Method 1311 in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846) for the inorganic, VOC and
SVOC constituents of concern; (3) oil and grease analysis using SW-846
1664, (4) total metals using SW-846 6010B or 6020 with mercury analysis
using SW-846 7471A; (5) total constituent analysis for sulfide, SW-846
Method 9034 and reactive analysis for sulfide, SW-846 Section 7.3; and
(6) total constituent analysis for cyanide, SW-846 Method 9012A and
reactive analysis for cyanide, SW-846 Section 7.3. In addition, the pH
of each sample was measured using SW-846 Method 9045C and a
determination was made that the waste was not ignitable, corrosive or
reactive (see 40 CFR 261.21-261.23). The data submitted included the
appropriate quality assurance/quality control information and was
validated by an independent third party as required in the Sampling and
Analysis Plan. The maximum values of constituents detected in any
sample of the wastewater treatment sludge or in a TCLP extract of that
sludge are summarized in the table below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum concentration observed Maximum allowable delisting level (2,000 cubic
-------------------------------- yards)
Constituent ---------------------------------------------------
Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/l) Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/l)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barium...................... 220 <0.05 NA 1.00x10 \2\
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.. 18 0.0036 NA 3.65x10 -\1\
Chromium.................... 40 <0.18 7.60x10 \5\ 5.00x10 \0\
Cresol, p-.................. 8.2 0.4 NA 1.14x10 \1\
Cyanide..................... 0.86 <0.05 NA 1.15x10 \1\
Dinitrotoluene, 2,4-........ <0.001 0.00028 2.29x10 \5\ 1.30x10 -\1\
Ethylbenzene................ 1.6 0.06 NA 4.26x10 \1\
Formaldehyde................ 4.9 0.24 6.88x10 \3\ 3.43x10 \2\
Mercury..................... 0.2 <0.0007 1.04x10 \1\ 1.55x10 -\1\
[[Page 76258]]
Napthalene.................. <0.001 0.011 NA 7.28x10 -\1\
Nickel...................... 3000 8.7 NA 9.05x10 \1\
Sulfides.................... 230 NA NA NA
Thallium.................... 21 <0.02 1.16x10 \5\ 2.82x10 -\1\
Tin......................... 120 3.1 NA 7.21x10 \2\
Toluene..................... <0.001 0.0025 NA 6.08x10 \1\
Xylenes (total)............. 7.9 0.33 NA 1.89x10 \1\
Zinc........................ 7900 0.74 NA 8.98x10 \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<--Not detected at the specified concentration.
NA--The DRAS program did not calculate a delisting level for this constituent, or the delisting level was higher
than those levels expected to be found in the waste. In the event high levels are discovered later, the
constituent will be evaluated and a delisting level set in accordance with the methodology used to set
delisting levels for the other constituents.
mg/kg--milligrams per kilogram.
mg/l--milligrams per liter.
These levels represent the highest constituent concentration found
in any one sample and do not necessarily represent the specific levels
found in a single sample.
III. EPA's Evaluation of This Petition
A. How did EPA evaluate the information submitted?
In developing this proposal, we considered the original listing
criteria and evaluated additional factors required by the Hazardous and
Solid Wastes Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section 222 of HSWA, 42
U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)-(4). We evaluated the
petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in 40
CFR 261.11(a)(2) and (3). These factors include: (1) Whether the waste
is considered acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity of the constituents; (3)
the concentration of the constituents in the waste; (4) the tendency of
the hazardous constituents to migrate and to bioaccumulate; (5)
persistence of these constituents in the environment once released from
the waste; (6) plausible and specific types of management of the
petitioned waste; (7) the quantity of waste produced; and (8) waste
variability.
EPA identified plausible exposure routes (ground water, surface
water, air) for hazardous constituents released from the waste in an
improperly managed Subtitle D landfill. To evaluate the waste, we used
the Delisting Risk Assessment Software program (DRAS), a Windows based
software tool, to estimate the potential release of hazardous
constituents from the waste and to predict the risk associated with
those releases. For a detailed description of the DRAS program and
revisions see: 65 FR 58015, September 27, 2000; 65 FR 75637, December
4, 2000; 65 FR 75897, December 5, 2000; and 67 FR 10341, March 7, 2002.
B. What did EPA conclude about this waste?
EPA compared the analytical results submitted by KCAP to the
maximum allowable levels calculated by the DRAS for an annual volume of
2,000 cubic yards. The maximum allowable levels for constituents
detected in the waste or the waste leachate are summarized in the table
above. All constituents compared favorably to the allowable levels.
The table also includes the maximum allowable levels in groundwater
at a potential receptor well, as evaluated by DRAS. These levels are
the more conservative of either the Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) or the health-based value calculated by DRAS
based on the target cancer risk level of 1x10 -\6\ or the
target hazard quotient of one.
EPA also used the DRAS program to estimate the aggregate cancer
risk and hazard index for constituents detected in the waste. The
aggregate cancer risk is the cumulative total of all individual
constituent cancer risks. The hazard index is a similar cumulative
total of non-cancer effects. The target aggregate cancer risk is 1x10
-\5\ and the target hazard index is one. The wastewater
treatment sludge at KCAP met both of these criteria.
IV. Proposal To Delist Waste From Kansas City Assembly
A. What is EPA proposing?
Today the EPA is proposing to conditionally exclude or delist 2,000
cubic yards annually of wastewater treatment sludge generated at KCAP
from conversion coating on aluminum.
B. What are the terms of this exclusion?
Ford must dispose of the KCAP waste in a lined Subtitle D landfill
which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a state to manage
industrial waste. Ford must verify on a quarterly basis that the
concentrations of the constituents of concern in the KCAP sludge do not
exceed the allowable levels set forth in this exclusion. The list of
constituents for verification is based on the concentration and
frequency of occurrence of constituents of concern in Ford's KCAP
sludge and in wastes generated by the majority of facilities
participating in the expedited process to delist F019. This exclusion
applies only to a maximum annual volume of 2,000 cubic yards and is
effective only if all conditions contained in this rule are satisfied.
C. 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): barium--100; chromium--5; mercury--0.155;
nickel--90; thallium--0.282; zinc--898; cyanides--11.5; ethyl benzene--
42.6; toluene--60.8; total xylenes--18.9; bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate--
0.365; p-cresol--11.4; 2,4-dinitrotoluene--0.13; formaldehyde--343; and
napthalene--0.728. The total concentrations in the waste of the
following constituents must not exceed the following levels (mg/kg):
chromium 760000; mercury--10.4; thallium--116000; 2,4-dinitrotoluene--
100000; and formaldehyde--6880.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
[[Page 76259]]
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB
review and the requirements of the Executive Order. It has been
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and therefore is not a
regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.) because it applies to a particular facility only.
Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a
particular facility and does not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities, it is not subject to the
regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
This rule is not subject to sections 202, 203, 204, and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4) because
this rule will affect only a particular facility. Therefore, EPA has
determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one
year.
Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this
final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule. Similarly, because this rule will affect only a particular
facility, this final rule does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045,``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as
defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have
reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by
this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for
this belief is that the Agency used the DRAS program, which considers
health and safety risks to infants and children, to calculate the
maximum allowable concentrations for this rule.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice
Reform,'' (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has
taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f). Authority for
this action has been delegated to the Regional Administrator (61 FR
32798, June 25, 1996).
Dated: November 16, 2006.
John B. Askew,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of part 261 the following wastestream
is added in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 1.--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Ford Motor Company Kansas City Claycomo, Missouri..... Wastewater treatment sludge, F019, that is
Assembly Plant. generated at the Ford Motor Company (Ford)
Kansas City Assembly Plant (KCAP) at a maximum
annual rate of 2,000 cubic yards per year. The
sludge must be disposed of in a lined landfill
with leachate collection, which is licensed,
permitted, or otherwise authorized to accept
the delisted wastewater treatment sludge in
accordance with 40 CFR part 258. The exclusion
becomes effective as of (insert final
publication date).
1. Delisting Levels: (a) The concentrations in a
TCLP extract of the waste measured in any
sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/
L): barium--100; chromium--5; mercury--0.155;
nickel--90; thallium--0.282; zinc--898;
cyanides--11.5; ethyl benzene--42.6; toluene--
60.8; total xylenes--18.9; bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate--0.365; p-cresol--11.4; 2,4-
dinitrotoluene--0.13; formaldehyde--343; and
napthalene--.728;
(b) The total concentrations measured in any
sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/
kg): chromium 760000; mercury--10.4; thallium--
116000; 2,4-dinitrotoluene--100000; and
formaldehyde--6880.
2. Quarterly Verification Testing: To verify
that the waste does not exceed the specified
delisting levels, Ford must collect and analyze
one representative sample of KCAP's sludge on a
quarterly basis.
3. Changes in Operating Conditions: Ford must
notify the EPA in writing if the manufacturing
process, the chemicals used in the
manufacturing process, the treatment process,
or the chemicals used in the treatment process
at KCAP significantly change. Ford must handle
wastes generated at KCAP after the process
change as hazardous until it has demonstrated
that the waste continues to meet the delisting
levels and that no new hazardous constituents
listed in appendix VIII of part 261 have been
introduced and Ford has received written
approval from EPA.
[[Page 76260]]
4. Data Submittals: Ford must submit the data
obtained through verification testing at KCAP
or as required by other conditions of this rule
to EPA Region 7, Air, RCRA and Toxics Division,
901 N. 5th, Kansas City, Kansas, 66208. The
quarterly verification data and certification
of proper disposal must be submitted annually
upon the anniversary of the effective date of
this exclusion. Ford must compile, summarize,
and maintain at KCAP records of operating
conditions and analytical data for a minimum of
five years. Ford must make these records
available for inspection. All data must be
accompanied by a signed copy of the
certification statement in 40 CFR
260.22(i)(12).
5. Reopener Language--(a) If, anytime after
disposal of the delisted waste, Ford possesses
or is otherwise made aware of any data
(including but not limited to leachate data or
groundwater monitoring data) relevant to the
delisted waste at KCAP indicating that any
constituent is at a level in the leachate
higher than the specified delisting level, or
is in the groundwater at a concentration higher
than the maximum allowable groundwater
concentration in paragraph (e), then Ford must
report such data in writing to the Regional
Administrator within 10 days of first
possessing or being made aware of that data.
(b) Based on the information described in
paragraph (a) and any other information
received from any source, the Regional
Administrator will make a preliminary
determination as to whether the reported
information requires Agency action to protect
human health or the environment. Further action
may include suspending, or revoking the
exclusion, or other appropriate response
necessary to protect human health and the
environment.
(c) If the Regional Administrator determines
that the reported information does require
Agency action, the Regional Administrator will
notify Ford in writing of the actions the
Regional Administrator believes are necessary
to protect human health and the environment.
The notice shall include a statement of the
proposed action and a statement providing Ford
with an opportunity to present information as
to why the proposed Agency action is not
necessary or to suggest an alternative action.
Ford shall have 30 days from the date of the
Regional Administrator's notice to present the
information.
(d) If after 30 days Ford presents no further
information, the Regional Administrator will
issue a final written determination describing
the Agency actions that are necessary to
protect human health or the environment. Any
required action described in the Regional
Administrator's determination shall become
effective immediately, unless the Regional
Administrator provides otherwise.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E6-21603 Filed 12-19-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
