Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Final Exclusion, 57418-57424 [E9-26837]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
57418
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
vicinity of Isle of Wight and Ocean City,
MD.
(b) Definitions. As used in this
section, designated representative
means any U.S. Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer
who has been authorized by the Captain
of the Port, Hampton Roads, Virginia to
act on his behalf.
(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with
the general regulations in 165.23 of this
part, entry into this zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port, Hampton Roads or his designated
representatives.
(2) The operator of any vessel in the
immediate vicinity of this safety zone
must:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon
being directed to do so by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer
on shore or on board a vessel that is
displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
(ii) Proceed as directed by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer
on shore or on board a vessel that is
displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
(3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton
Roads can be reached through the Sector
Duty Officer at Sector Hampton Roads
in Portsmouth, Virginia at telephone
number (757) 638–6641.
(4) The Coast Guard Representatives
enforcing the safety zone can be
contacted on VHF–FM marine band
radio channel 13 (165.65 Mhz) and
channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).
(d) Enforcement Period: This
regulation will be in effect from October
22, 2009 through December 31, 2009.
Dated: October 22, 2009.
M.S. Ogle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. E9–26772 Filed 11–5–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R05–RCRA–2009–0747; SW–FRL–
8972–9]
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ‘‘the Agency’’
or ‘‘we’’ in this preamble) is granting a
petition to exclude (or ‘‘delist’’)
wastewater treatment plant sludges from
conversion coating on aluminum
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:06 Nov 05, 2009
Jkt 220001
generated at the Sterling Heights
Assembly Plant (SHAP), Sterling
Heights, Michigan from the list of
hazardous wastes. SHAP is owned by
Old Carco LLC (formerly Chrysler LLC,
formerly DaimlerChrysler) and operated
by Chrysler Group LLC.
This action conditionally excludes the
petitioned waste from the requirements
of hazardous waste regulations under
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of
in a lined Subtitle D landfill which is
permitted, licensed, or registered by a
State to manage industrial solid waste.
The exclusion was proposed on March
7, 2002 as part of an expedited process
to evaluate this waste under a pilot
project developed with the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ). The rule also imposes testing
conditions for waste generated in the
future to ensure that this waste
continues to qualify for delisting.
DATES: This rule is effective on
November 6, 2009.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R05–RCRA–2009–0747. The
electronic docket contains all relevant
documents created after this action was
proposed as well as a selection of
pertinent documents from the original
paper docket for the proposed rule,
Docket ID No. R5–MIECOS–01. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in
hard copy form. All documents in the
electronic docket are listed on the
https://www.regulations.gov Web site.
Publicly available materials from Docket
ID No. EPA–R05–RCRA–2009–0747 are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy. Materials from the original paper
docket, Docket ID No. R5–MIECOS–01,
are also available in hard copy. You can
view and copy materials from both
dockets at the Records Center, 7th floor,
U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604. This
facility is open from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. We recommend you telephone
Todd Ramaly at (312) 353–9317 before
visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Todd Ramaly, Land and Chemicals
Division, (Mail Code: LR–8J), EPA
Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,
IL 60604; telephone number: (312) 353–
9317; fax number: (312) 353–4788;
e-mail address: ramaly.todd@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Background
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
A. What is a delisting petition?
B. What regulations allow a waste to be
delisted?
C. What waste did SHAP petition to delist?
II. The Expedited Process for Delisting
A. Why was the expedited process
developed for this waste?
B. What is the expedited process to delist
F019?
III. EPA’s Evaluation of This Petition
A. What information was submitted in
support of this petition?
B. How did EPA evaluate the information
submitted?
IV. Public Comments Received on the
Proposed Exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on the
proposed rule?
B. Comments Received and Responses
From EPA
V. Final Rule Granting This Petition
A. What decision is EPA finalizing?
B. What are the terms of this exclusion?
C. When is the delisting effective?
D. How does this action affect the states?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. What is a delisting petition?
A delisting petition is a request from
a generator to exclude waste from the
list of hazardous wastes under RCRA
regulations. In a delisting petition, the
petitioner must show that waste
generated at a particular facility does
not meet any of the criteria for which
EPA listed the waste as set forth in Title
40 Code of Federal Regulations (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 documents for a listed
waste.
Generators remain obligated under
RCRA to confirm that their waste
remains nonhazardous based on the
hazardous waste characteristics even if
EPA has ‘‘delisted’’ the wastes and to
ensure that future generated wastes
meet 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), facilities may petition
the EPA to remove their wastes from
hazardous waste control by excluding
them 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
E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM
06NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
260 through 266, 268, and 273 of 40
CFR. 40 CFR 260.22 provides a
generator the opportunity to petition the
Administrator to exclude a waste from
the lists of hazardous wastes on a
‘‘generator specific’’ basis.
C. What waste did SHAP petition to
delist?
SHAP petitioned to exclude
wastewater treatment sludges resulting
from a zinc phosphating conversion
coating process on car and truck bodies,
which have aluminum components.
When treated, wastewater from
conversion coating on aluminum results
in a listed waste, F019. The wastewater
from the phosphating process entering
the wastewater treatment plant
combines with wastewaters from other
operations at the plant including
cleaning and rinsing operations,
electrocoating processes, vehicle leak
testing, and floor scrubbing.
Wastewaters include alkaline cleaners,
surfactants, organic detergents, rinse
conditioners from cleaning operations
and overflows and rinse water from
electrocoating. All sludge from the
treatment of this wastewater is regulated
as RCRA hazardous waste F019.
II. The Expedited Process for Delisting
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
A. Why was the expedited process
developed for this waste?
Automobile manufacturers are adding
aluminum components to automobile
and light truck bodies. When aluminum
is conversion coated in a zinc
phosphating process, the resulting
wastewater treatment sludge must be
managed as EPA hazardous waste F019.
F019 wastes generated at other auto
assembly plants using the same zinc
phosphating and wastewater treatment
processes have been shown to be
nonhazardous.
This similarity of manufacturing
processes and the resultant wastes
provides an opportunity for the
automobile industry to be more efficient
in submitting delisting petitions and for
EPA to be more efficient in evaluating
them. Efficiency may be gained and
time saved by using a standardized
approach for gathering, submitting and
evaluating data. Therefore, EPA, in
conjunction with MDEQ, developed a
pilot project to expedite the delisting
process. This approach to making
delisting determinations for this group
of facilities is efficient while still being
consistent with current laws and
regulations and protective of human
health and the environment.
By removing regulatory controls
under RCRA, EPA is facilitating the use
of aluminum in cars. EPA believes that
incorporating aluminum in cars will be
advantageous to the environment since
lighter cars are capable of achieving
better fuel economy.
B. What is the expedited process to
delist F019?
The expedited process to delist F019
is an approach developed through a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with MDEQ for gathering and evaluating
data in support of multiple petitions
from automobile assembly plants. The
expedited delisting process is applicable
to wastes generated by automobile and
light truck assembly plants in the State
of Michigan which use a similar
manufacturing process and generate
similar F019 waste.
Based on available historical data and
other information, the expedited process
identified 70 constituents which might
be of concern in the waste and provides
that the F019 sludge generated by
automobile assembly plants may be
delisted if the levels of the 70
constituents do not exceed the
allowable levels established for each
constituent in this rulemaking. The
maximum annual quantity of waste
generated by any single facility that may
be covered by an expedited delisting is
3,000 cubic yards. Delisting
concentrations were also proposed for
smaller quantities of 1,000 and 2,000
cubic yards per year.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of This Petition
A. What information was submitted in
support of this petition?
SHAP submitted certification that its
process was consistent with the process
described in the MOU between Region
5 and MDEQ. See 67 FR 10341, March
7, 2002. One additional non-chromium
sealer was identified by SHAP. Based on
the provided Material Safety Data Sheet
(MSDS), the additional sealer does not
appear to add new hazardous
constituents to the process. The facility
also asserted that its waste does not
meet the criteria for which F019 waste
Maximum observed concentration
was listed and there are no other factors
that might cause the waste to be
hazardous.
To support its exclusion
demonstration, SHAP collected six
samples representing waste generated
over six discreet one-week periods
beginning March 7 and ending April 17,
2007. SHAP stored six 55-gallon drums
of the sludge representative of each
week the waste was generated and
collected composite and grab samples
from each of the drums on April 18,
2007. Each sample was analyzed for: (1)
Total analyses of 69 constituents of
concern; (2) Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP), SW–846
Method 1311, analyses of 69
constituents of concern; (3) oil and
grease; and (4) leachable metals using
the Extraction Procedure for Oily
Wastes (OWEP), SW–846 Method
1330A, in lieu of Method 1311 if a
sample contained more than 1% oil and
grease. In addition, a determination was
made that the waste was not ignitable,
corrosive or reactive (see 40 CFR
261.21–261.23). Although the expedited
delisting project originally required
analysis of 70 constituents, analysis of
acrylamide required extreme methods to
achieve a detection level at the level of
concern and no acrylamide was
detected in any sample analyzed by the
original facilities participating in the
expedited delisting project. Thus, the
Agency decided it would not be
appropriate to require analysis for
acrylamide. Also, SHAP analyzed for
total sulfide and total cyanide which
supported the narrative determination
of non-reactivity required in 40 CFR
261.23. With the exception of the minor
changes described above, all sampling
and analyses were done in accordance
with the sampling and analysis plan,
which is an appendix to the MOU and
is available in the docket for this rule.
The maximum concentrations of
constituents detected in any sample of
the waste (in milligrams per kilogram—
mg/kg) and in a TCLP or OWEP analysis
of that waste (in milligrams per liter—
mg/L) are summarized in the following
table. The data submitted included the
appropriate quality assurance and
quality control (QA/QC) information
validated by a third party.
Maximum allowable
concentration
GW
(μg/L)
Constituent detected
Total
(mg/kg)
TCLP
(mg/L)
57419
TCLP*
(mg/L)
Total
(mg/kg)
Volatile Organic Compounds
Acetone ................................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:06 Nov 05, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
2.7 J
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
0.38 J
E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM
NA
06NOR1
171
3,750
57420
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Maximum observed concentration
Maximum allowable
concentration
Constituent detected
Total
(mg/kg)
Acetonitrile ...........................................................................
Benzene ...............................................................................
Butanol .................................................................................
Chloroform ...........................................................................
Ethylbenzene .......................................................................
Formaldehyde ......................................................................
methyl ethyl ketone ..............................................................
methyl isobutyl ketone .........................................................
methylene chloride ...............................................................
Styrene .................................................................................
Toluene ................................................................................
Xylene ..................................................................................
TCLP
(mg/L)
<2.5
0.14 J
<25
<0.5
0.3 J
37
<2.5
<2.5
0.56 J
<0.5
2.0
3.0
Total
(mg/kg)
0.0012 J
0.0095
0.15 J
0.002 J
0.0093
1.8
0.021 J
0.023 J
0.0056
0.0074
0.12
0.059
NA
NA
NA
5,080
NA
535
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TCLP*
(mg/L)
29.3
GW
(μg/L)
171
0.0583
31.9
63
200
137
0.216
4.56
45.6
456
643
2.5
3,758
1.35
700
1,380
22,545
3,000
5
100
1,000
10,000
1 0.057
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ....................................................
butyl benzyl phthalate ..........................................................
2,4-dinitrotoluene .................................................................
di-n-octyl phthalate ...............................................................
Hexachlorobenzene .............................................................
Hexachlorobutadiene ...........................................................
Naphthalene .........................................................................
2-methylphenol .....................................................................
4-methylphenol .....................................................................
Pentachlorophenol ...............................................................
Pyridine ................................................................................
2,4,5-trichlorophenol ............................................................
2,4,6-trichlorophenol ............................................................
8.5 J
<7.5
<1.5
3.3 J
<0.013
<1.5
0.36 J
<1.5
<1.5
<1.5
<3.0
0.21 J
0.68 J
0.00072 J
0.00023 J
0.00002
<0.002
0.00002
0.00002
0.0041
0.002
0.12 J
0.002
0.00098 J
<0.001
<0.001
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.12
212
NA
NA
NA
1,960
NA
NA
NA
0.0671
69.6
0.0049
0.0839
0.0000724
0.0072
2 0.00822
85.5
8.55
3 0.00607
1.71
68.6
0.207
1.47
1,448
0.107
1.296
0.00168
0.167
245
1,870
187
0.071
37.575
1,503
4.8
0.0028 J
0.0051 J
0.11 J
0.0006 J
0.0074 J
0.024 J
0.0068 J
<0.16
<0.0009 J
8.5
0.0028 J
<0.06
0.0003 J
6.1
<0.05
5.6
NA
7,740
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.34
NA
NA
NA
4 247
NA
NA
NA
0.494
0.00224
100
0.998
0.36
3.71
54
5.0
0.2
67.8
1.0
5.0
0.211
540
50.6
673
6
4.87
2,000
40
5
100
2,248
15
2
750
50
187
2
22,476
263
11,220
Metals
Antimony ..............................................................................
Arsenic .................................................................................
Barium ..................................................................................
Beryllium ..............................................................................
Cadmium ..............................................................................
Chromium .............................................................................
Cobalt ...................................................................................
Lead .....................................................................................
Mercury ................................................................................
Nickel ...................................................................................
Selenium ..............................................................................
Silver ....................................................................................
Thallium ................................................................................
Tin ........................................................................................
Vanadium .............................................................................
Zinc ......................................................................................
<20
<50
77
0.074 J
1.6
76
3.5
5.1
0.0091
840
<20
2.5
<20
250 J
1.8 J
5,500
* Or OWEP as applicable.
< Not detected at the specified concentration.
NA Not applicable.
J Estimated.
1 Proposed maximum concentration (0.109 mg/L) adjusted for updated toxicity data.
2 Proposed maximum concentration (11.2 mg/L) adjusted for inhalation carcinogenicity.
3 Proposed maximum concentration (0.00307 mg/L) adjusted due to exposure time correction.
4 Maximum total (247 mg/kg) replacing proposed ‘‘NA’’ due to bioaccumulation factor entry.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
B. How did EPA evaluate the
information submitted?
EPA compared the analytical results
submitted by SHAP to the maximum
allowable concentrations set forth in the
proposed rule (67 FR 10341, March 7,
2002) or as updated below. The
maximum allowable concentrations for
constituents detected in the waste or a
TCLP extract of the waste are
summarized in the table above, along
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:06 Nov 05, 2009
Jkt 220001
with the highest observed
concentration. The table also includes
the maximum allowable concentrations
in groundwater at a potential receptor
well (in micrograms per liter—μg/L), as
evaluated by the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software (DRAS). These
concentrations 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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
cancer risk level of 10¥6. For arsenic,
the target cancer risk was set at 10¥4 in
consideration of the MCL and the
potential for natural occurrence. The
maximum allowable groundwater
concentration and delisting level for
arsenic correspond to a drinking water
concentration less than one-half the
current MCL of 10 μg/L.
Some of the maximum allowable
concentrations have been updated to
reflect new toxicity data or in response
E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM
06NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
to a technical correction in the
modeling. Specifically, the maximum
allowable leachate concentration for
benzene was adjusted from 0.109 mg/L
to 0.057 mg/L because the cancer slope
factor for oral exposure was increased
from 0.029 kg·day/mg to 0.055 kg·day/
mg. The maximum allowable leachate
concentration for naphthalene was
adjusted from 11.2 mg/L to 0.00822
mg/L due to adding an inhalation
calculation for carcinogenicity. The
maximum allowable leachate
concentration for pentachlorophenol
was adjusted from 0.00307 mg/L to
0.00607 to reflect a correction to
exposure time in the dermal pathway
for children. A maximum allowable
total concentration of 247 mg/kg for
thallium was added after the database
was adjusted to include
bioaccumulation and ingestion of
thallium in fish.
EPA also used DRAS 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 plant sludge at SHAP met
both of these criteria based on
maximum observed values using DRAS
version 2, the version in use when the
SHAP waste samples were collected. A
new version of DRAS (version 3) has
been released with current toxicity data
and extensive modeling updates.
Although EPA did not base the
evaluation of SHAP waste on the new
DRAS methodology, a screening of the
maximum observed concentrations with
the new DRAS version showed that the
aggregate hazard index and cancer risks
remain below target levels.
IV. Public Comments Received on the
Proposed Exclusion
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
A. Who submitted comments on the
proposed rule?
The EPA received public comments
on the proposed rule published on
March 7, 2002 from Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers, Honda of
America Mfg., Inc., Alcoa Inc., and The
Aluminum Association. All commenters
were supportive of the proposal and
suggested expanding the project and
revising the listing.
B. Comments Received and Responses
From EPA
(1) Comment: EPA should revise the
F019 listing to specify that wastewater
treatment sludges from zinc
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:06 Nov 05, 2009
Jkt 220001
phosphating operations are not within
the scope of the listing. Data gathered as
a result of the Expedited Delisting
Project, together with the available
historical data, should provide enough
data to fully characterize this waste and
to justify a revision of the listing.
EPA Response: On June 4, 2008 (73
FR 31756), the Agency amended the
F019 listing to exempt the wastewater
treatment sludge generated from zinc
phosphating, when zinc phosphating is
used, in the automobile assembly
process and provided the waste is
disposed in a landfill unit subject to
certain design criteria. The amendment
has yet to be adopted by the State of
Michigan. The SHAP facility will likely
be able to comply with either the
amended listing or the requirements of
this delisting.
(2) Comment: EPA should issue an
interpretive rule clarifying that zinc
phosphating operations are outside the
scope of the F019 listing.
EPA Response: See response to
comment (1) above.
(3) Comment: Automobile assembly
facilities outside of Michigan would like
to take advantage of the precedent set by
this expedited delisting project to delist
F019 generated by similar operations in
other states and regions.
EPA Response: The Agency believes
that the expedited delisting procedures
and requirements set forth in this
proposal are appropriate for similar
automotive assembly facilities outside
the State of Michigan, subject to the
discretion of the regulatory agency (state
or region).
(4) Comment: Alternatives to
landfilling like recycling should be
allowed within the petition process.
EPA Response: The risk assessment
model currently used by the Agency
does not predict the risks from exposure
to waste that are managed through
recycling. EPA’s conditional delisting
policy is that in order to reduce the
uncertainty caused by potential
unrestricted use or management of
delisted waste, delistings apply only to
wastes managed in the type of unit (e.g.,
‘‘a landfill’’) modeled in the delisting
risk assessment. The Agency has no
documented information to indicate a
market exists for recovering the metals
in F019 waste from motor vehicle
manufacturers. See 73 FR 31756, 31762
(June 4, 2008). The Agency notes that
the exclusion is conditioned upon
certain disposal, sampling, and volume
requirements. While the conditional
exclusion being promulgated today does
not eliminate the possibility of
legitimate reuse of the sludge, the final
rule does not address such use.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57421
(5) Comment: Analytical methods
should be specified in the pre-approved
common sampling plan instead of
requiring each participant to submit a
site-specific list of methods.
EPA Response: Allowing the
petitioner to choose an analytical
method which meets the data quality
objectives specific to the delisting
petition provides flexibility. Data
quality objectives will vary depending
on the allowable concentrations that are
a function of the volume of petitioned
waste. The Agency believes that the
flexibility of performance-based
methods results in better data.
(6) Comment: Detection limits should
not be required prior to sampling since
they cannot be adequately predicted
without a way to estimate matrix effects.
EPA Response: Although matrix
effects cannot be assessed in advance of
laboratory analysis, a laboratory should
be able to provide estimated detection
levels and reporting levels which are
lower than, or at least equal to, the
allowable delisting concentration for
each constituent.
(7) Comment: Since the process
generating the sludge is extremely
stable, verification sampling should be
conducted on an annual, instead of
quarterly, basis. The requirement that
any process change is promptly reported
and the exclusion suspended until EPA
gives written approval that the delisting
can continue is an adequate safeguard
justifying the decrease in sample event
frequency.
EPA Response: Verification data
submitted in conjunction with past
delistings of this waste have shown
significant variation on a quarterly basis
over longer periods of time. Annual
sampling would not detect such
variations. Once enough verification
data are collected to support a statistical
analysis, a change in the frequency of
verification sampling and/or sampling
parameters may be considered.
(8) Comment: The final Federal
Register should make it clear that
assembly plants that manufacture light
trucks are also eligible for the project.
EPA Response: Today’s final rule
specifically defines eligible facilities as
inclusive of manufacturers of light
trucks.
(9) Comment: The table of maximum
allowable levels in the March 7, 2002
proposed rule contains errors in the
columns for vinyl chloride.
EPA Response: A missing space or tab
in the table caused the error. The
maximum allowable concentrations
proposed for 2,000 cubic yards of waste
should have been 115 mg/kg total and
0.00234 mg/L TCLP.
E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM
06NOR1
57422
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
V. Final Rule Granting This Petition
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
A. What decision is EPA finalizing?
Today the EPA is finalizing an
exclusion to conditionally delist an
annual volume of 3,000 cubic yards of
wastewater treatment plant sludges
generated at SHAP from conversion
coating on aluminum.
On March 7, 2002, EPA proposed to
exclude or delist this wastewater
treatment sludge from the list of
hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31 and
accepted public comment on the
proposed rule (67 FR 10341). EPA
considered all comments received, and
we believe that this waste should be
excluded from hazardous waste control.
After EPA proposed the exclusion for
SHAP in 2002, the Agency promulgated
the Methods Innovation Rule (MIR) (70
FR 34538, June 14, 2005). The MIR
reformed RCRA-related testing and
monitoring by restricting requirements
to use the methods found in ‘‘Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods,’’ also
known as ‘‘SW–846,’’ to those situations
where the method is the only one
capable of measuring the property (i.e.,
it is used to measure a method-defined
parameter). In addition, the MIR revised
several conditional delistings to
specifically mention method-defined
parameters incorporated by reference at
§ 260.11 consistent with the Office of
Federal Register’s revised format for
incorporation by reference. Therefore,
EPA is including a specific reference to
SW–846 Methods 1311, 1330A, and
9071B (method-defined parameters) for
the generation of the leachate extract in
the quarterly verification testing
requirement for the SHAP delisting.
SW–846 Method 1311 must be used for
generation of the leachate extract used
in the testing of the delisting levels if oil
and grease comprise less than 1% of the
waste. SW–846 Method 1330A must be
used for generation of the leaching
extract if oil and grease comprise 1% or
more of the waste. SW–846 Method
9071B must be used for determination
of oil and grease. SW–846 Methods
1311, 1330A, and 9071B are
incorporated by reference in 40 CFR
260.11.
B. What are the terms of this exclusion?
SHAP must dispose of the waste in a
lined Subtitle D landfill which is
permitted, licensed, or registered by a
state to manage industrial solid waste.
SHAP must obtain and analyze on a
quarterly basis a representative sample
of the waste. SHAP must verify that the
concentrations of the constituents of
concern do not exceed the allowable
concentrations set forth in this
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:06 Nov 05, 2009
Jkt 220001
exclusion. The list of constituents for
verification is a subset of those initially
tested for and is based on the
concentrations detected relative to the
allowable concentrations. Two of the
constituents selected for verification
required extraordinary analytical
methods in order to achieve detection
limits at or below the delisting
concentrations. Hexachlorobenzene and
pentachlorophenol are not expected to
be significant components of the
petitioned waste, and standard analysis
for verification will suffice.
This exclusion applies only to a
maximum annual volume of 3,000 cubic
yards and is effective only if all
conditions contained in this rule are
satisfied.
C. When is the delisting effective?
This rule is effective November 6,
2009. The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 amended section
3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become
effective in less than six months when
the regulated community does not need
the six-month period to come into
compliance. This rule reduces rather
than increases the existing requirements
and, therefore, is effective immediately
upon publication under the
Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
D. How does this action affect the
states?
Today’s exclusion is being issued
under the federal RCRA delisting
program. Therefore, only states subject
to federal RCRA delisting provisions
would be affected. This exclusion is not
effective in states that have received
authorization to make their own
delisting decisions. Also, the exclusion
may not be effective in states having a
dual system that includes federal RCRA
requirements and their own
requirements. EPA allows states to
impose their own regulatory
requirements that are more stringent
than EPA’s, under section 3009 of
RCRA. These more stringent
requirements may include a provision
that prohibits a federally issued
exclusion from taking effect in the state.
Because a dual system (that is, both
Federal (RCRA) and state (non-RCRA)
programs) may regulate a petitioner’s
waste, we urge petitioners to contact the
state regulatory authority to establish
the status of their wastes under the state
law. If a participating facility transports
the petitioned waste to or manages the
waste in any state with delisting
authorization, it must obtain a delisting
from that state before it can manage the
waste as nonhazardous in the state.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is
not of general applicability 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, it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or
to sections 202, 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,
it will not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as specified in
section 203 of UMRA. 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 DRAS, which considers health and
safety risks to 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
E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM
06NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report which includes a
57423
copy of the rule to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. Section 804
exempts from section 801 the following
types of rules: (1) Rules of particular
applicability; (2) rules relating to agency
management or personnel; and (3) rules
of agency organization, procedure, or
practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency
parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not
required to submit a rule report
regarding today’s action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular
applicability.
Dated: October 5, 2009.
Margaret M. Guerriero,
Director, Land and Chemicals Division.
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).
Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is 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:
TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
Facility
Address
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
*
Chrysler Group LLC
at the Old Carco
LLC Sterling
Heights Assembly
Plant.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
*
Sterling Heights,
Michigan.
16:06 Nov 05, 2009
Jkt 220001
Waste description
*
*
*
*
*
Wastewater treatment sludges, F019, that are generated at Old Carco LLC’s Sterling Heights Assembly Plant, (SHAP), Sterling Heights, Michigan by Chrysler Group LLC at a maximum annual
rate of 3,000 cubic yards per year. The sludges must be disposed of in a lined landfill with
leachate collection which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized to accept the delisted
wastewater treatment sludges in accordance with 40 CFR part 258. The exclusion becomes effective as of November 6, 2009.
1. Delisting Levels: The concentrations in a leachate extract of the waste measured in any sample must not exceed the following levels (mg/L): arsenic—0.22; nickel—67.8; benzene—0.057;
hexachlorobenzene—0.0000724; naphthalene—0.00822; and pentachlorophenol—0.00607.
2. Quarterly Verification Testing: To verify that the waste does not exceed the specified delisting
levels, Chrysler Group LLC or Old Carco LLC must collect and analyze one representative
sample of the waste on a quarterly basis. Sample collection and analyses, including quality
control procedures, must be performed using appropriate methods. SW–846 Method 1311 must
be used for generation of the leachate extract used in the testing of the delisting levels if oil
and grease comprise less than 1% of the waste. SW–846 Method 1330A must be used for
generation of the leaching extract if oil and grease comprise 1% or more of the waste. SW–846
Method 9071B must be used for determination of oil and grease. SW–846 Methods 1311,
1330A, and 9071B are incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11.
3. Changes in Operating Conditions: Chrysler Group LLC or Old Carco LLC 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 change significantly. Chrysler Group LLC or Old Carco LLC must handle wastes generated after the process change as
hazardous until it has demonstrated that the wastes continue to meet the delisting levels and
that no new hazardous constituents listed in Appendix VIII of part 261 have been introduced
and it has received written approval from EPA.
4. Data Submittals: Chrysler Group LLC or Old Carco LLC must submit the data obtained through
verification testing or as required by other conditions of this rule to both U.S. EPA Region 5, 77
W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604 and MDEQ, Waste and Hazardous Materials Division,
Hazardous Waste Section, at P.O. Box 30241, Lansing, Michigan 48909. The quarterly
verification data and certification of proper disposal must be submitted annually upon the anniversary of the effective date of this exclusion. Chrysler Group LLC or Old Carco LLC must compile, summarize and maintain on site for a minimum of five years records of operating conditions and analytical data. Chrysler Group LLC or Old Carco LLC must make these records
available for inspection. A signed copy of the certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12)
must accompany all data.
5. Reopener Language—(a) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste Chrysler Group LLC
or Old Carco LLC 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 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 Chrysler Group LLC or Old Carco LLC must report such data, in writing,
to the Regional Administrator within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that
data.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM
06NOR1
57424
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
(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 inform Chrysler Group LLC or Old Carco LLC 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 Chrysler Group LLC or Old Carco LLC with an opportunity to present information as to
why the proposed Agency action is not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. Chrysler
Group LLC or Old Carco LLC shall have 30 days from the date of the Regional Administrator’s
notice to present the information.
(d) If after 30 days Chrysler Group LLC or Old Carco LLC presents no further information, the Regional Administrator will issue a final written determination describing the Agency actions that
are necessary to protect human health or the environment. Any required action described in the
Regional Administrator’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Regional
Administrator provides otherwise.
(e) Maximum Allowable Groundwater Concentrations (μg/L): arsenic—4.87; nickel—750; benzene—2.5; hexachlorobenzene—0.00168; naphthalene—245; and pentachlorophenol—0.071.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E9–26837 Filed 11–5–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 721
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2008–0251; FRL–8438–5]
RIN 2070–AB27
Significant New Use Rules on Certain
Chemical Substances; Technical
Amendment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; technical
amendment.
In the Federal Register of
November 5, 2008 (73 FR 65743) (FRL–
8371–3), EPA issued direct final
significant new use rules (SNURs) for 56
chemical substances which were the
subject of premanufacture notices
(PMNs). For the chemical substance
identified as Oxetane, 3,3′[oxybis(methylene)] bis[3-ethyl- (PMN
P–03–471; CAS No. 18934–00–4), the
citation at § 721.10095(a)(2)(ii)
incorrectly identified one of the hazard
communication program requirements.
This action corrects the final regulation.
DATES: This final rule is effective
November 6, 2009.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2008–0251. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index
available at https://www.regulations.gov.
Although listed in the index, some
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:06 Nov 05, 2009
Jkt 220001
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at
https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPPT
Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm.
3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number of
the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the OPPT Docket is (202)
566–0280. Docket visitors are required
to show photographic identification,
pass through a metal detector, and sign
the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are
processed through an X-ray machine
and subject to search. Visitors will be
provided an EPA/DC badge that must be
visible at all times in the building and
returned upon departure.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator,
Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address:
TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.
For technical information contact:
Abeer Hashem, Chemical Control
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–
0001; telephone number: (202) 564–
1117; e-mail address:
hashem.abeer@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Does this Action Apply to Me?
The Agency included in the direct
final rule a list of those who may be
potentially affected by this action. If you
have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the technical
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
II. What Does this Technical
Amendment Do?
In the Federal Register of November
5, 2008 (73 FR 65743), EPA issued a
direct final SNUR for the chemical
substance identified as Oxetane, 3,3′[oxybis(methylene)] bis[3-ethyl- (PMN
P–03–471; CAS No. 18934–00–4) in
accordance with the procedures at
§ 721.160(c)(3)(i). For this substance, the
citation at § 721.10095(a)(2)(ii)
incorrectly identified one of the hazard
communication program requirements.
This technical amendment corrects the
hazard communication requirement
under § 721.72 from (g)(1)(v) to
(g)(1)(vi).
III. Why is this Technical Amendment
Issued as a Final Rule?
Section 553 of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an
Agency for good cause finds that notice
and public procedure are impracticable,
E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM
06NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 214 (Friday, November 6, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57418-57424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-26837]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R05-RCRA-2009-0747; SW-FRL-8972-9]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ``the Agency'' or ``we'' in this preamble) is
granting a petition to exclude (or ``delist'') wastewater treatment
plant sludges from conversion coating on aluminum generated at the
Sterling Heights Assembly Plant (SHAP), Sterling Heights, Michigan from
the list of hazardous wastes. SHAP is owned by Old Carco LLC (formerly
Chrysler LLC, formerly DaimlerChrysler) and operated by Chrysler Group
LLC.
This action conditionally excludes the petitioned waste from the
requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of in a lined
Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a
State to manage industrial solid waste. The exclusion was proposed on
March 7, 2002 as part of an expedited process to evaluate this waste
under a pilot project developed with the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ). The rule also imposes testing conditions
for waste generated in the future to ensure that this waste continues
to qualify for delisting.
DATES: This rule is effective on November 6, 2009.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-RCRA-2009-0747. The electronic docket contains all relevant
documents created after this action was proposed as well as a selection
of pertinent documents from the original paper docket for the proposed
rule, Docket ID No. R5-MIECOS-01. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. All documents in the
electronic docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Publicly available materials from Docket ID No. EPA-R05-RCRA-
2009-0747 are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy. Materials from the original paper
docket, Docket ID No. R5-MIECOS-01, are also available in hard copy.
You can view and copy materials from both dockets at the Records
Center, 7th floor, U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm, Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend you telephone
Todd Ramaly at (312) 353-9317 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Ramaly, Land and Chemicals
Division, (Mail Code: LR-8J), EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd.,
Chicago, IL 60604; telephone number: (312) 353-9317; fax number: (312)
353-4788; e-mail address: ramaly.todd@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?
C. What waste did SHAP petition to delist?
II. The Expedited Process for Delisting
A. Why was the expedited process developed for this waste?
B. What is the expedited process to delist F019?
III. EPA's Evaluation of This Petition
A. What information was submitted in support of this petition?
B. How did EPA evaluate the information submitted?
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?
B. Comments Received and Responses From EPA
V. Final Rule Granting This Petition
A. What decision is EPA finalizing?
B. What are the terms of this exclusion?
C. When is the delisting effective?
D. How does this action affect the states?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. What is a delisting petition?
A delisting petition is a request from a generator to exclude waste
from the list of hazardous wastes under RCRA regulations. In a
delisting petition, the petitioner must show that waste generated at a
particular facility does not meet any of the criteria for which EPA
listed the waste as set forth in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(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 documents for a
listed waste.
Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm that their waste
remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics even
if EPA has ``delisted'' the wastes and to ensure that future generated
wastes meet 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), facilities may
petition the EPA to remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by
excluding them 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
[[Page 57419]]
260 through 266, 268, and 273 of 40 CFR. 40 CFR 260.22 provides a
generator the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a
waste from the lists of hazardous wastes on a ``generator specific''
basis.
C. What waste did SHAP petition to delist?
SHAP petitioned to exclude wastewater treatment sludges resulting
from a zinc phosphating conversion coating process on car and truck
bodies, which have aluminum components. When treated, wastewater from
conversion coating on aluminum results in a listed waste, F019. The
wastewater from the phosphating process entering the wastewater
treatment plant combines with wastewaters from other operations at the
plant including cleaning and rinsing operations, electrocoating
processes, vehicle leak testing, and floor scrubbing. Wastewaters
include alkaline cleaners, surfactants, organic detergents, rinse
conditioners from cleaning operations and overflows and rinse water
from electrocoating. All sludge from the treatment of this wastewater
is regulated as RCRA hazardous waste F019.
II. The Expedited Process for Delisting
A. Why was the expedited process developed for this waste?
Automobile manufacturers are adding aluminum components to
automobile and light truck bodies. When aluminum is conversion coated
in a zinc phosphating process, the resulting wastewater treatment
sludge must be managed as EPA hazardous waste F019. F019 wastes
generated at other auto assembly plants using the same zinc phosphating
and wastewater treatment processes have been shown to be nonhazardous.
This similarity of manufacturing processes and the resultant wastes
provides an opportunity for the automobile industry to be more
efficient in submitting delisting petitions and for EPA to be more
efficient in evaluating them. Efficiency may be gained and time saved
by using a standardized approach for gathering, submitting and
evaluating data. Therefore, EPA, in conjunction with MDEQ, developed a
pilot project to expedite the delisting process. This approach to
making delisting determinations for this group of facilities is
efficient while still being consistent with current laws and
regulations and protective of human health and the environment.
By removing regulatory controls under RCRA, EPA is facilitating the
use of aluminum in cars. EPA believes that incorporating aluminum in
cars will be advantageous to the environment since lighter cars are
capable of achieving better fuel economy.
B. What is the expedited process to delist F019?
The expedited process to delist F019 is an approach developed
through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with MDEQ for gathering and
evaluating data in support of multiple petitions from automobile
assembly plants. The expedited delisting process is applicable to
wastes generated by automobile and light truck assembly plants in the
State of Michigan which use a similar manufacturing process and
generate similar F019 waste.
Based on available historical data and other information, the
expedited process identified 70 constituents which might be of concern
in the waste and provides that the F019 sludge generated by automobile
assembly plants may be delisted if the levels of the 70 constituents do
not exceed the allowable levels established for each constituent in
this rulemaking. The maximum annual quantity of waste generated by any
single facility that may be covered by an expedited delisting is 3,000
cubic yards. Delisting concentrations were also proposed for smaller
quantities of 1,000 and 2,000 cubic yards per year.
III. EPA's Evaluation of This Petition
A. What information was submitted in support of this petition?
SHAP submitted certification that its process was consistent with
the process described in the MOU between Region 5 and MDEQ. See 67 FR
10341, March 7, 2002. One additional non-chromium sealer was identified
by SHAP. Based on the provided Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), the
additional sealer does not appear to add new hazardous constituents to
the process. The facility also asserted that its waste does not meet
the criteria for which F019 waste was listed and there are no other
factors that might cause the waste to be hazardous.
To support its exclusion demonstration, SHAP collected six samples
representing waste generated over six discreet one-week periods
beginning March 7 and ending April 17, 2007. SHAP stored six 55-gallon
drums of the sludge representative of each week the waste was generated
and collected composite and grab samples from each of the drums on
April 18, 2007. Each sample was analyzed for: (1) Total analyses of 69
constituents of concern; (2) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP), SW-846 Method 1311, analyses of 69 constituents of concern; (3)
oil and grease; and (4) leachable metals using the Extraction Procedure
for Oily Wastes (OWEP), SW-846 Method 1330A, in lieu of Method 1311 if
a sample contained more than 1% oil and grease. In addition, a
determination was made that the waste was not ignitable, corrosive or
reactive (see 40 CFR 261.21-261.23). Although the expedited delisting
project originally required analysis of 70 constituents, analysis of
acrylamide required extreme methods to achieve a detection level at the
level of concern and no acrylamide was detected in any sample analyzed
by the original facilities participating in the expedited delisting
project. Thus, the Agency decided it would not be appropriate to
require analysis for acrylamide. Also, SHAP analyzed for total sulfide
and total cyanide which supported the narrative determination of non-
reactivity required in 40 CFR 261.23. With the exception of the minor
changes described above, all sampling and analyses were done in
accordance with the sampling and analysis plan, which is an appendix to
the MOU and is available in the docket for this rule.
The maximum concentrations of constituents detected in any sample
of the waste (in milligrams per kilogram--mg/kg) and in a TCLP or OWEP
analysis of that waste (in milligrams per liter--mg/L) are summarized
in the following table. The data submitted included the appropriate
quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) information validated by
a third party.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum observed concentration Maximum allowable
-------------------------------- concentration
Constituent detected -------------------------------- GW ([mu]g/L)
Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L) Total (mg/kg) TCLP\*\ (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone......................... 2.7 J 0.38 J NA 171 3,750
[[Page 57420]]
Acetonitrile.................... <2.5 0.0012 J NA 29.3 643
Benzene......................... 0.14 J 0.0095 NA \1\ 0.057 2.5
Butanol......................... <25 0.15 J NA 171 3,758
Chloroform...................... <0.5 0.002 J 5,080 0.0583 1.35
Ethylbenzene.................... 0.3 J 0.0093 NA 31.9 700
Formaldehyde.................... 37 1.8 535 63 1,380
methyl ethyl ketone............. <2.5 0.021 J NA 200 22,545
methyl isobutyl ketone.......... <2.5 0.023 J NA 137 3,000
methylene chloride.............. 0.56 J 0.0056 NA 0.216 5
Styrene......................... <0.5 0.0074 NA 4.56 100
Toluene......................... 2.0 0.12 NA 45.6 1,000
Xylene.......................... 3.0 0.059 NA 456 10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate...... 8.5 J 0.00072 J NA 0.0671 1.47
butyl benzyl phthalate.......... <7.5 0.00023 J NA 69.6 1,448
2,4-dinitrotoluene.............. <1.5 0.00002 NA 0.0049 0.107
di-n-octyl phthalate............ 3.3 J <0.002 NA 0.0839 1.296
Hexachlorobenzene............... <0.013 0.00002 1.12 0.0000724 0.00168
Hexachlorobutadiene............. <1.5 0.00002 212 0.0072 0.167
Naphthalene..................... 0.36 J 0.0041 NA \2\ 0.00822 245
2-methylphenol.................. <1.5 0.002 NA 85.5 1,870
4-methylphenol.................. <1.5 0.12 J NA 8.55 187
Pentachlorophenol............... <1.5 0.002 1,960 \3\ 0.00607 0.071
Pyridine........................ <3.0 0.00098 J NA 1.71 37.575
2,4,5-trichlorophenol........... 0.21 J <0.001 NA 68.6 1,503
2,4,6-trichlorophenol........... 0.68 J <0.001 NA 0.207 4.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony........................ <20 0.0028 J NA 0.494 6
Arsenic......................... <50 0.0051 J 7,740 0.00224 4.87
Barium.......................... 77 0.11 J NA 100 2,000
Beryllium....................... 0.074 J 0.0006 J NA 0.998 40
Cadmium......................... 1.6 0.0074 J NA 0.36 5
Chromium........................ 76 0.024 J NA 3.71 100
Cobalt.......................... 3.5 0.0068 J NA 54 2,248
Lead............................ 5.1 <0.16 NA 5.0 15
Mercury......................... 0.0091 <0.0009 J 6.34 0.2 2
Nickel.......................... 840 8.5 NA 67.8 750
Selenium........................ <20 0.0028 J NA 1.0 50
Silver.......................... 2.5 <0.06 NA 5.0 187
Thallium........................ <20 0.0003 J \4\ 247 0.211 2
Tin............................. 250 J 6.1 NA 540 22,476
Vanadium........................ 1.8 J <0.05 NA 50.6 263
Zinc............................ 5,500 5.6 NA 673 11,220
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Or OWEP as applicable.
< Not detected at the specified concentration.
NA Not applicable.
J Estimated.
\1\ Proposed maximum concentration (0.109 mg/L) adjusted for updated toxicity data.
\2\ Proposed maximum concentration (11.2 mg/L) adjusted for inhalation carcinogenicity.
\3\ Proposed maximum concentration (0.00307 mg/L) adjusted due to exposure time correction.
\4\ Maximum total (247 mg/kg) replacing proposed ``NA'' due to bioaccumulation factor entry.
B. How did EPA evaluate the information submitted?
EPA compared the analytical results submitted by SHAP to the
maximum allowable concentrations set forth in the proposed rule (67 FR
10341, March 7, 2002) or as updated below. The maximum allowable
concentrations for constituents detected in the waste or a TCLP extract
of the waste are summarized in the table above, along with the highest
observed concentration. The table also includes the maximum allowable
concentrations in groundwater at a potential receptor well (in
micrograms per liter--[mu]g/L), as evaluated by the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software (DRAS). These concentrations are the more
conservative of either the Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL) or the health-based value calculated by DRAS based on the
target cancer risk level of 10-\6\. For arsenic, the target
cancer risk was set at 10-\4\ in consideration of the MCL
and the potential for natural occurrence. The maximum allowable
groundwater concentration and delisting level for arsenic correspond to
a drinking water concentration less than one-half the current MCL of 10
[mu]g/L.
Some of the maximum allowable concentrations have been updated to
reflect new toxicity data or in response
[[Page 57421]]
to a technical correction in the modeling. Specifically, the maximum
allowable leachate concentration for benzene was adjusted from 0.109
mg/L to 0.057 mg/L because the cancer slope factor for oral exposure
was increased from 0.029 kg[middot]day/mg to 0.055 kg[middot]day/mg.
The maximum allowable leachate concentration for naphthalene was
adjusted from 11.2 mg/L to 0.00822 mg/L due to adding an inhalation
calculation for carcinogenicity. The maximum allowable leachate
concentration for pentachlorophenol was adjusted from 0.00307 mg/L to
0.00607 to reflect a correction to exposure time in the dermal pathway
for children. A maximum allowable total concentration of 247 mg/kg for
thallium was added after the database was adjusted to include
bioaccumulation and ingestion of thallium in fish.
EPA also used DRAS 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 plant sludge at SHAP met both of
these criteria based on maximum observed values using DRAS version 2,
the version in use when the SHAP waste samples were collected. A new
version of DRAS (version 3) has been released with current toxicity
data and extensive modeling updates. Although EPA did not base the
evaluation of SHAP waste on the new DRAS methodology, a screening of
the maximum observed concentrations with the new DRAS version showed
that the aggregate hazard index and cancer risks remain below target
levels.
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?
The EPA received public comments on the proposed rule published on
March 7, 2002 from Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Honda of
America Mfg., Inc., Alcoa Inc., and The Aluminum Association. All
commenters were supportive of the proposal and suggested expanding the
project and revising the listing.
B. Comments Received and Responses From EPA
(1) Comment: EPA should revise the F019 listing to specify that
wastewater treatment sludges from zinc phosphating operations are not
within the scope of the listing. Data gathered as a result of the
Expedited Delisting Project, together with the available historical
data, should provide enough data to fully characterize this waste and
to justify a revision of the listing.
EPA Response: On June 4, 2008 (73 FR 31756), the Agency amended the
F019 listing to exempt the wastewater treatment sludge generated from
zinc phosphating, when zinc phosphating is used, in the automobile
assembly process and provided the waste is disposed in a landfill unit
subject to certain design criteria. The amendment has yet to be adopted
by the State of Michigan. The SHAP facility will likely be able to
comply with either the amended listing or the requirements of this
delisting.
(2) Comment: EPA should issue an interpretive rule clarifying that
zinc phosphating operations are outside the scope of the F019 listing.
EPA Response: See response to comment (1) above.
(3) Comment: Automobile assembly facilities outside of Michigan
would like to take advantage of the precedent set by this expedited
delisting project to delist F019 generated by similar operations in
other states and regions.
EPA Response: The Agency believes that the expedited delisting
procedures and requirements set forth in this proposal are appropriate
for similar automotive assembly facilities outside the State of
Michigan, subject to the discretion of the regulatory agency (state or
region).
(4) Comment: Alternatives to landfilling like recycling should be
allowed within the petition process.
EPA Response: The risk assessment model currently used by the
Agency does not predict the risks from exposure to waste that are
managed through recycling. EPA's conditional delisting policy is that
in order to reduce the uncertainty caused by potential unrestricted use
or management of delisted waste, delistings apply only to wastes
managed in the type of unit (e.g., ``a landfill'') modeled in the
delisting risk assessment. The Agency has no documented information to
indicate a market exists for recovering the metals in F019 waste from
motor vehicle manufacturers. See 73 FR 31756, 31762 (June 4, 2008). The
Agency notes that the exclusion is conditioned upon certain disposal,
sampling, and volume requirements. While the conditional exclusion
being promulgated today does not eliminate the possibility of
legitimate reuse of the sludge, the final rule does not address such
use.
(5) Comment: Analytical methods should be specified in the pre-
approved common sampling plan instead of requiring each participant to
submit a site-specific list of methods.
EPA Response: Allowing the petitioner to choose an analytical
method which meets the data quality objectives specific to the
delisting petition provides flexibility. Data quality objectives will
vary depending on the allowable concentrations that are a function of
the volume of petitioned waste. The Agency believes that the
flexibility of performance-based methods results in better data.
(6) Comment: Detection limits should not be required prior to
sampling since they cannot be adequately predicted without a way to
estimate matrix effects.
EPA Response: Although matrix effects cannot be assessed in advance
of laboratory analysis, a laboratory should be able to provide
estimated detection levels and reporting levels which are lower than,
or at least equal to, the allowable delisting concentration for each
constituent.
(7) Comment: Since the process generating the sludge is extremely
stable, verification sampling should be conducted on an annual, instead
of quarterly, basis. The requirement that any process change is
promptly reported and the exclusion suspended until EPA gives written
approval that the delisting can continue is an adequate safeguard
justifying the decrease in sample event frequency.
EPA Response: Verification data submitted in conjunction with past
delistings of this waste have shown significant variation on a
quarterly basis over longer periods of time. Annual sampling would not
detect such variations. Once enough verification data are collected to
support a statistical analysis, a change in the frequency of
verification sampling and/or sampling parameters may be considered.
(8) Comment: The final Federal Register should make it clear that
assembly plants that manufacture light trucks are also eligible for the
project.
EPA Response: Today's final rule specifically defines eligible
facilities as inclusive of manufacturers of light trucks.
(9) Comment: The table of maximum allowable levels in the March 7,
2002 proposed rule contains errors in the columns for vinyl chloride.
EPA Response: A missing space or tab in the table caused the error.
The maximum allowable concentrations proposed for 2,000 cubic yards of
waste should have been 115 mg/kg total and 0.00234 mg/L TCLP.
[[Page 57422]]
V. Final Rule Granting This Petition
A. What decision is EPA finalizing?
Today the EPA is finalizing an exclusion to conditionally delist an
annual volume of 3,000 cubic yards of wastewater treatment plant
sludges generated at SHAP from conversion coating on aluminum.
On March 7, 2002, EPA proposed to exclude or delist this wastewater
treatment sludge from the list of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31 and
accepted public comment on the proposed rule (67 FR 10341). EPA
considered all comments received, and we believe that this waste should
be excluded from hazardous waste control. After EPA proposed the
exclusion for SHAP in 2002, the Agency promulgated the Methods
Innovation Rule (MIR) (70 FR 34538, June 14, 2005). The MIR reformed
RCRA-related testing and monitoring by restricting requirements to use
the methods found in ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods,'' also known as ``SW-846,'' to those
situations where the method is the only one capable of measuring the
property (i.e., it is used to measure a method-defined parameter). In
addition, the MIR revised several conditional delistings to
specifically mention method-defined parameters incorporated by
reference at Sec. 260.11 consistent with the Office of Federal
Register's revised format for incorporation by reference. Therefore,
EPA is including a specific reference to SW-846 Methods 1311, 1330A,
and 9071B (method-defined parameters) for the generation of the
leachate extract in the quarterly verification testing requirement for
the SHAP delisting. SW-846 Method 1311 must be used for generation of
the leachate extract used in the testing of the delisting levels if oil
and grease comprise less than 1% of the waste. SW-846 Method 1330A must
be used for generation of the leaching extract if oil and grease
comprise 1% or more of the waste. SW-846 Method 9071B must be used for
determination of oil and grease. SW-846 Methods 1311, 1330A, and 9071B
are incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11.
B. What are the terms of this exclusion?
SHAP must dispose of the waste in a lined Subtitle D landfill which
is permitted, licensed, or registered by a state to manage industrial
solid waste. SHAP must obtain and analyze on a quarterly basis a
representative sample of the waste. SHAP must verify that the
concentrations of the constituents of concern do not exceed the
allowable concentrations set forth in this exclusion. The list of
constituents for verification is a subset of those initially tested for
and is based on the concentrations detected relative to the allowable
concentrations. Two of the constituents selected for verification
required extraordinary analytical methods in order to achieve detection
limits at or below the delisting concentrations. Hexachlorobenzene and
pentachlorophenol are not expected to be significant components of the
petitioned waste, and standard analysis for verification will suffice.
This exclusion applies only to a maximum annual volume of 3,000
cubic yards and is effective only if all conditions contained in this
rule are satisfied.
C. When is the delisting effective?
This rule is effective November 6, 2009. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. This rule
reduces rather than increases the existing requirements and, therefore,
is effective immediately upon publication under the Administrative
Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
D. How does this action affect the states?
Today's exclusion is being issued under the federal RCRA delisting
program. Therefore, only states subject to federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This exclusion is not effective in states
that have received authorization to make their own delisting decisions.
Also, the exclusion may not be effective in states having a dual system
that includes federal RCRA requirements and their own requirements. EPA
allows states to impose their own regulatory requirements that are more
stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent
requirements may include a provision that prohibits a federally issued
exclusion from taking effect in the state. Because a dual system (that
is, both Federal (RCRA) and state (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a
petitioner's waste, we urge petitioners to contact the state regulatory
authority to establish the status of their wastes under the state law.
If a participating facility transports the petitioned waste to or
manages the waste in any state with delisting authorization, it must
obtain a delisting from that state before it can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in the state.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability
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, it is not subject to
the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202, 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, it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as specified in
section 203 of UMRA. 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 DRAS, which considers health and safety
risks to 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
[[Page 57423]]
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.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report which includes a copy of the rule to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of
rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not
required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular applicability.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: October 5, 2009.
Margaret M. Guerriero,
Director, Land and Chemicals Division.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended as
follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
0
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Chrysler Group LLC at the Old Sterling Heights, Michigan..... Wastewater treatment sludges, F019, that are
Carco LLC Sterling Heights generated at Old Carco LLC's Sterling Heights
Assembly Plant. Assembly Plant, (SHAP), Sterling Heights,
Michigan by Chrysler Group LLC at a maximum
annual rate of 3,000 cubic yards per year.
The sludges must be disposed of in a lined
landfill with leachate collection which is
licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized
to accept the delisted wastewater treatment
sludges in accordance with 40 CFR part 258.
The exclusion becomes effective as of
November 6, 2009.
1. Delisting Levels: The concentrations in a
leachate extract of the waste measured in any
sample must not exceed the following levels
(mg/L): arsenic--0.22; nickel--67.8; benzene--
0.057; hexachlorobenzene--0.0000724;
naphthalene--0.00822; and pentachlorophenol--
0.00607.
2. Quarterly Verification Testing: To verify
that the waste does not exceed the specified
delisting levels, Chrysler Group LLC or Old
Carco LLC must collect and analyze one
representative sample of the waste on a
quarterly basis. Sample collection and
analyses, including quality control
procedures, must be performed using
appropriate methods. SW-846 Method 1311 must
be used for generation of the leachate
extract used in the testing of the delisting
levels if oil and grease comprise less than
1% of the waste. SW-846 Method 1330A must be
used for generation of the leaching extract
if oil and grease comprise 1% or more of the
waste. SW-846 Method 9071B must be used for
determination of oil and grease. SW-846
Methods 1311, 1330A, and 9071B are
incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11.
3. Changes in Operating Conditions: Chrysler
Group LLC or Old Carco LLC 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
change significantly. Chrysler Group LLC or
Old Carco LLC must handle wastes generated
after the process change as hazardous until
it has demonstrated that the wastes continue
to meet the delisting levels and that no new
hazardous constituents listed in Appendix
VIII of part 261 have been introduced and it
has received written approval from EPA.
4. Data Submittals: Chrysler Group LLC or Old
Carco LLC must submit the data obtained
through verification testing or as required
by other conditions of this rule to both U.S.
EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,
IL 60604 and MDEQ, Waste and Hazardous
Materials Division, Hazardous Waste Section,
at P.O. Box 30241, Lansing, Michigan 48909.
The quarterly verification data and
certification of proper disposal must be
submitted annually upon the anniversary of
the effective date of this exclusion.
Chrysler Group LLC or Old Carco LLC must
compile, summarize and maintain on site for a
minimum of five years records of operating
conditions and analytical data. Chrysler
Group LLC or Old Carco LLC must make these
records available for inspection. A signed
copy of the certification statement in 40 CFR
260.22(i)(12) must accompany all data.
5. Reopener Language--(a) If, anytime after
disposal of the delisted waste Chrysler Group
LLC or Old Carco LLC 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 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 Chrysler
Group LLC or Old Carco LLC must report such
data, in writing, to the Regional
Administrator within 10 days of first
possessing or being made aware of that data.
[[Page 57424]]
(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 inform Chrysler Group LLC or Old Carco
LLC 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
Chrysler Group LLC or Old Carco LLC with an
opportunity to present information as to why
the proposed Agency action is not necessary
or to suggest an alternative action. Chrysler
Group LLC or Old Carco LLC shall have 30 days
from the date of the Regional Administrator's
notice to present the information.
(d) If after 30 days Chrysler Group LLC or Old
Carco LLC presents no further information,
the Regional Administrator will issue a final
written determination describing the Agency
actions that are necessary to protect human
health or the environment. Any required
action described in the Regional
Administrator's determination shall become
effective immediately, unless the Regional
Administrator provides otherwise.
(e) Maximum Allowable Groundwater
Concentrations ([mu]g/L): arsenic--4.87;
nickel--750; benzene--2.5; hexachlorobenzene--
0.00168; naphthalene--245; and
pentachlorophenol--0.071.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-26837 Filed 11-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
