Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Proposed Exclusion, 76255-76260 [E6-21603]

Download as PDF 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. http://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 http:// 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 http:// www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 http://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 http:// 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. http://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 
http://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 http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 
http://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 http://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