Federal Register, Volume 61 Issue 65 (Wednesday, April 3, 1996)

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 3, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14696-14709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8140]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261

[FRL-5448-4]

Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) today is
proposing to grant a petition submitted by United Technologies
Automotive (UTA), Detroit, Michigan, to exclude (or ``delist''),
conditionally, on a one-time, upfront basis, a certain solid waste
generated by UTA's chemical stabilization treatment of lagoon sludge at
the Highway 61 Industrial Site in Memphis, Tennessee, from the lists of
hazardous wastes in Secs. 261.31 and 261.32. Based on careful analyses
of the waste-specific information provided by the petitioner, the
Agency has concluded that UTA's petitioned waste will not adversely
affect human health and the environment. This action responds to UTA's
petition to delist this waste on a ``generator-specific'' basis from
the hazardous waste lists. If the proposed decision is finalized, the
petitioned waste will not be subject to regulation under Subtitle C of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The Agency is also proposing to use two methods to evaluate the
potential impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the
environment: (1) A fate and transport model (the EPA Composite Model
for Landfills, ``EPACML'' model) , based on the waste-specific
information provided by the petitioner; and (2) the generic delisting
levels in Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1) for nonwastewater residues
generated from treatment of the listed hazardous waste F006, by high
temperature metal recovery (HTMR). Specifically, EPA proposes to use
the EPACML model to calculate the concentration of each hazardous
constituent that may be present in an extract of the petitioned waste
obtained by means of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP), which will not have an adverse impact on groundwater if the
petitioned waste is delisted and then disposed in a Subtitle D
landfill. EPA will compare the concentration for each hazardous
constituent calculated by the EPACML model to the generic delisting
level for that constituent in Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1). EPA proposes
to use the lower of these two concentrations as the delisting level for
each hazardous constituent in the waste.

DATES: EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision and
on the applicability of the fate and transport model and the generic
delisting levels used to evaluate the petition. Comments will be
accepted until May 20, 1996. Comments postmarked after the close of the
comment period will be stamped ``late.''
Any person may request a hearing on this proposed decision by
filing a request with Richard D. Green, Acting Director of the Waste
Management Division, EPA, Region 4, whose address appears below, by
April 18, 1996. The request must contain the information prescribed in
Sec. 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Send three copies of your comments to Jeaneanne M. Gettle,
Acting Chief, RCRA Compliance Section, U.S. Environmental Protection

[[Page 14697]]
Agency, Region 4, 345 Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
Identify your comments at the top with this regulatory docket number:
R4-96-UTEP
Requests for a hearing should be addressed to Richard D. Green,
Acting Director, Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 345 Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta,
Georgia 30365.
The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule is located at the
EPA Library, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 345
Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30365, and is available for
viewing from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays.
The public may copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost
for the first 100 pages, and at a cost of $0.15 per page for additional
copies.
Copies of the petition are available during normal business hours
at the following addresses for inspection and copying: Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation, 5th Floor, L & C Tower, 401
Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1535; and U.S. EPA Region 4,
Library, 345 Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30365; (404) 347-
4216.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline, toll free at (800) 424-9346, or at (703) 412-9810. For
technical information concerning this notice, contact Judy
Sophianopoulos, RCRA Compliance Section, (Mail Code 4WD-RCRA), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 345 Courtland Street, NE.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30365, (404) 347-3555, x6408, or call, toll free,
(800) 241-1754, and leave a message, with your name and phone number,
for Ms. Sophianopoulos to return your call. You may also contact Jerry
Ingram, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, 5th
Floor, L & C Tower, 401 Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1535,
(615) 532-0850.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Authority

On January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim final
regulations implementing Section 3001 of RCRA, EPA published an amended
list of hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific sources. This
list has been amended several times, and is published in Secs. 261.31
and 261.32. These wastes are listed as hazardous because they exhibit
one or more of the characteristics of hazardous wastes identified in
Subpart C of part 261 (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and
toxicity) or meet the criteria for listing contained in Sec. 261.11
(a)(2) or (a)(3).
Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste
that is described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a
specific waste from an individual facility meeting the listing
description may not be. For this reason, Secs. 260.20 and 260.22
provide an exclusion procedure, allowing persons to demonstrate that a
specific waste from a particular generating facility should not be
regulated as a hazardous waste.
To have their wastes excluded, petitioners must show, first, that
wastes generated at their facilities do not meet any of the criteria
for which the wastes were listed. See Sec. 260.22(a) and the background
documents for the listed wastes. Second, the Administrator must
determine, where he/she has a reasonable basis to believe that factors
(including additional constituents) other than those for which the
waste was listed could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste, that
such factors do not warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
Accordingly, a petitioner also must demonstrate that the waste does not
exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability,
reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity), and must present sufficient
information for the Agency to determine whether the waste contains any
other toxicants at hazardous levels. See Sec. 260.22(a), 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 6921(f), and the background documents for the listed wastes.
Although wastes which are ``delisted'' (i.e., excluded) have been
evaluated to determine whether or not they exhibit any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste, generators remain obligated under
RCRA to determine whether or not their wastes continue to be
nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e.,
characteristics which may be promulgated subsequent to a delisting
decision.)
In addition, residues from the treatment, storage, or disposal of
listed hazardous wastes and mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes
are also considered hazardous wastes. See Secs. 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and
(c)(2)(i), referred to as the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively. Such wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain
hazardous wastes until excluded. On December 6, 1991, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the ``mixture/derived-
from'' rules and remanded them to the Agency on procedural grounds.
Shell Oil Co. v. EPA, 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1991). On March 3, 1992,
EPA reinstated the mixture and derived-from rules, and solicited
comments on other ways to regulate waste mixtures and residues (57 FR
7628, Mar. 3, 1992). The Agency plans to address issues related to
waste mixtures and residues in a future rulemaking.
On October 10, 1995, the Administrator delegated to the Regional
Administrators the authority to evaluate and approve or deny petitions
submitted in accordance with Secs. 260.20 and 260.22, by generators
within their Regions [National Delegation of Authority 8-19], in States
not yet authorized to administer a delisting program in lieu of the
Federal program. On March 11, 1996, the Regional Administrator of EPA,
Region 4, redelegated delisting authority to the Director of the Waste
Management Division [Regional Delegation of Authority 8-19].

B. Approach Used To Evaluate This Petition

This petition requests a delisting for a hazardous waste listed as
F006. In making the initial delisting determination, the Agency
evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors
cited in Secs. 261.11 (a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, the
Agency agrees with the petitioner that the waste is nonhazardous with
respect to the original listing criteria. (If the Agency had found,
based on this review, that the waste remained hazardous based on the
factors for which the waste was originally listed, EPA would have
proposed to deny the petition.) EPA then evaluated the waste with
respect to other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a
reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors could cause
the waste to be hazardous. See Secs. 260.22 (a) and (d). The Agency
considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, and considered the
toxicity of the constituents, the concentration of the constituents in
the waste, their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their
persistence in the environment once released from the waste, plausible
and specific types of management of the petitioned waste, the
quantities of waste generated, and waste variability.
For this delisting determination, the Agency used such information
to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., groundwater, surface
water, air) for hazardous constituents present in the petitioned waste.
The Agency determined that disposal in a Subtitle D landfill is the
most reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for UTA's petitioned
waste, and that the major exposure route of concern would be

[[Page 14698]]
ingestion of contaminated groundwater. Therefore, the Agency is
proposing to use a particular fate and transport model (the ``EPACML''
model) to predict the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous
constituents that may be released from the petitioned waste after
disposal and to determine the potential impact of the disposal of UTA's
petitioned waste on human health and the environment.
Specifically, the Agency used the maximum estimated waste volume
and the maximum reported leachate concentrations as inputs to estimate
the constituent concentrations in the groundwater at a hypothetical
receptor well downgradient from the disposal site. The calculated
receptor well concentrations (referred to as compliance-point
concentrations) were then compared directly to the health-based levels
used in delisting decision-making for the hazardous constituents of
concern.
EPA believes that this fate and transport model represents a
reasonable worst-case scenario for disposal of the petitioned waste in
a landfill, and that a reasonable worst-case scenario is appropriate
when evaluating whether a waste should be relieved of the protective
management constraints of RCRA Subtitle C. The use of a reasonable
worst-case scenario results in conservative values for the compliance-
point concentrations and ensures that the waste, once removed from
hazardous waste regulation, will not pose a threat to human health or
the environment. Because a delisted waste is no longer subject to
hazardous waste control, the Agency is generally unable to predict and
does not control how a waste will be managed after delisting.
Therefore, EPA currently believes that it is inappropriate to consider
extensive site-specific factors when applying the fate and transport
model.
For example, a generator may petition the Agency for delisting of a
metal hydroxide sludge which is currently being managed in an on-site
landfill and provide site-specific data, such as the nearest drinking
water well, permeability of the aquifer, and dispersivities. If the
Agency were to base its evaluation solely on these site-specific
factors, the Agency might conclude that the waste, at that specific
location, cannot affect the closest well, and the Agency might grant
the petition. Upon promulgation of the exclusion, however, the
generator is under no obligation to continue to manage the waste at the
on-site landfill. In fact, the generator may well choose to either send
the delisted waste off site immediately, or eventually reach the
capacity of the on-site facility and subsequently send the waste off
site to a facility which may have very different hydrogeological and
exposure conditions.
The Agency also considers the applicability of groundwater
monitoring data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this
case, the Agency determined that, because UTA is seeking a delisting
for treated lagoon wastes which will be generated during a removal
action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA), and may be managed ultimately either on
site or off site, groundwater monitoring data collected from the areas
where the petitioned waste is contained prior to treatment, are
necessary to determine whether hazardous constituents have already
migrated to the underlying groundwater. Groundwater monitoring data
collected from UTA's monitoring wells will help characterize the
potential impact (if any) of the disposal of UTA's waste on human
health and the environment.
UTA petitioned the Agency for an upfront, conditional, one-time
exclusion based on analytical data on samples from a treatability study
and on samples of untreated waste. Similar to other facilities seeking
upfront exclusions, this upfront exclusion would be contingent upon UTA
conducting analytical testing of representative samples of the
petitioned waste as soon as the treatment system is brought on-line.
This testing would be necessary to demonstrate that the treated waste
is a nonhazardous waste (i.e., meets the Agency's verification testing
conditions).
From the evaluation of UTA's delisting petition, a list of
constituents was developed for the verification testing conditions.
Proposed maximum allowable leachable concentrations for these
constituents, and a total concentration for one, were derived as
described in Section II.D. and Section II.E. of this preamble.
The Agency encourages the use of upfront delisting petitions
because they have the advantage of allowing the applicant to know what
treatment levels for constituents will be sufficient to render specific
wastes nonhazardous, before investing in new or modified waste
treatment systems. Therefore, upfront delistngs will allow new
facilities to receive exclusions prior to generating wastes, which,
without upfront exclusions would unnecessarily have been considered
hazardous. Upfront delistings for existing facilities can be processed
concurrently during construction or permitting activities; therefore,
new or modified treatment systems should be capable of producing wastes
that are considered nonhazardous sooner than would otherwise be
possible. At the same time, conditional testing requirements to verify
that the delisting levels are achieved by the fully operational
treatment systems will ensure that only nonhazardous wastes are removed
from Subtitle C control.
In the past, the Agency has granted numerous conditional
delistings, including conditional delistings for waste treatment
facilities located at multiple sites (see 51 FR 41323, November 14,
1986, and 51 FR 41494, November 17, 1986), as well as an upfront
delisting that allows an additional treatment unit to be added at the
same site (see 56 FR 32993, July 18, 1991), and an upfront delisting
that allows new treatment units at different sites to be added,
provided the verification testing conditions are satisfied (see 60 FR
31107, June 13, 1995).
The Agency provides notice and an opportunity for comment before
granting or denying a final exclusion. Thus, a final decision will not
be made until all timely public comments (including those at public
hearings, if any) on today's proposal are addressed. Late comments will
be considered to the extent possible.

II. Disposition of Delisting Petition United Technologies Automotive,
Detroit, Michigan

A. Petition for Exclusion

United Technologies Automotive (UTA), located in Detroit, Michigan,
is seeking a delisting for treated lagoon waste which will be generated
during a removal action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The removal action is
required by the Unilateral Administrative Order (``the UAO'') issued to
UTA by EPA, on January 26, 1995. The waste to be treated was generated
prior to 1980 in seven lagoons formerly used to manage electroplating
wastewater at the Highway 61 Industrial Site in Memphis, Tennessee
(``the Site''). Notwithstanding the fact that the waste was generated
prior to 1980, the waste so generated meets the listing definition of
EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006--``Wastewater treatment sludges from
electroplating operations except from the following processes: (1)
Sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating on carbon steel;
(3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on carbon steel; (4) aluminum or
zinc-aluminum

[[Page 14699]]
plating on carbon steel; (5) cleaning/stripping associated with tin,
zinc, and aluminum plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical etching
and milling of aluminum''--when it is actively managed by excavation
and treatment after the effective date of the listing of F006.
(Original listing of F006 by Interim Final Rule in 45 FR 33112-33133,
May 19, 1980; Modified in 45 FR 74384-74892, Nov. 12, 1980; and
clarified by Interpretative Rule in 51 FR 43350-43351, Dec. 2, 1986).
See 51 FR 40577, Nov. 7, 1986; 53 FR 31147-31148, Aug. 17, 1988; 53 FR
51444 and 51445, Dec. 21, 1988; 55 FR 22678, June 1, 1990; and Chemical
Waste Management v. EPA, 869 F.2d at 1535-37 (D.C. Cir. 1989), for
Agency position on active management. UTA proposes to treat the sludge
by chemical stabilization, and to delist the treatment residue, which
is also classified as F006 by application of Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(i), the
derived-from rule. By application of the ``contained-in policy,'' any
lagoon soil excavated and treated with the sludge must also be managed
as F006. See memorandum, dated February 17, 1995, from Devereaux Barnes
to Norm Niedergang, and Region 4 Guidance Number TSC-92-02, dated
August 1992.
UTA petitioned the Administrator, in October 1995, to exclude, on a
one-time, upfront basis, the treatment residue generated from chemical
stabilization of sludges removed from six of the seven lagoons located
at the Site. Sludges from Lagoon 7 will not be removed and treated,
because constituent concentrations were found, by total analysis of
these samples, to be below the cleanup levels required by the UAO. On
November 21, 1995, in accordance with the delegation of delisting
authority by the Administrator to the Regional Administrators, UTA
submitted to EPA, Region 4, the petition to delist F006 generated by
chemical stabilization of sludges from the six lagoons at the Site.
The hazardous constituents of concern for which F006 was listed are
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and cyanide (complexed).
Chemically stabilized sludge and soil from the six lagoons at the Site
is the waste which is the subject of this petition. UTA petitioned the
Agency to exclude its waste because it does not believe that the waste
meets the criteria of the listing.
UTA claims that its chemically stabilized sludge/soil is not
hazardous because the constituents of concern, although present in the
waste, are present in either insignificant concentrations or, if
present at significant levels, are essentially in immobile forms. UTA
also believes that this waste is not hazardous for any other reason
(i.e., there are no additional constituents or factors that could cause
the waste to be hazardous). Review of this petition included
consideration of the original listing criteria, as well as the
additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) of 1984. See Section 222 of HSWA, 42 USC 6921(f), and 40 CFR
260.22(d)(2)-(4). Today's proposal to grant this petition for delisting
is the result of the Agency's evaluation of UTA's petition.

B. Background

On November 21, 1995, UTA petitioned EPA, Region 4, to exclude the
chemically stabilized sludge and soil from Lagoons 1-6 at the Highway
61 Industrial Site in Memphis, Tennessee (``the Site''), and
subsequently provided additional information, in response to a request
by EPA. After evaluating the petition and the additional information,
the Agency proposes to approve UTA's petition to exclude the subject
waste, because the Agency believes that the petitioned waste is
eligible for an exclusion based on the current evaluation criteria.
Therefore, the Agency hereby proposes to grant UTA's petition. The
Agency's evaluation of UTA's petitioned waste, which consists of the
chemically stabilized sludge and soil from Lagoons 1-6 at the Site, is
the subject of today's proposal.
In support of its petition, UTA submitted: (1) detailed
descriptions of the waste and history of its management; (2) detailed
descriptions of all previously known and current activities at the
Site; (3) results from total constituent analyses for arsenic, barium,
cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver, (the eight
Toxicity Characteristic (TC) metals listed in Sec. 261.24); the
priority pollutant metals, including nickel, (a hazardous constituent
for which F006 is listed), antimony,and thallium; and cyanide; (4)
results for the eight Toxicity Characteristic (TC) metals from the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP; Method 1311 in ``Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA
Publication SW-846 [Third Edition (November 1986), as amended by
Updates I (July 1992), II (September 1994), IIA (August 1993), and IIB
(January 1995)]; methods in this publication are referred to in today's
proposed rule as ``SW-846,'' followed by the appropriate method
number); (5) results from the Multiple Extraction Procedure (MEP; SW-
846 Method 1320) for cadmium and chromium; (6) results from the
analysis for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH, Method 418.1 in
``Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,'' EPA Publication
EPA-600/4-79-020; (7) results from characteristics testing for
ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity; (8) results from total
constituent analyses for 33 volatile organic compounds and 64
semivolatile organic constituents, including the TC organic
constituents; and (9) groundwater monitoring data collected from wells
monitoring the on-site lagoons.
UTA's petition states that electroplating operations at the Site
were conducted between the early 1960s and 1973, and no electroplating
wastewater sludge was generated after 1973. Lagoons 1-7 contained
electroplating wastewaters and were allegedly used for oxidation
purposes. UTA reported that the sludge generated in the lagoons has a
moisture content of approximately 56%.
A CERCLA Unilateral Administrative Order issued on January 26, 1995
(``the UAO''), required that sludge from lagoons at the Site be
excavated, stabilized, and disposed of, as part of an emergency removal
action. UTA estimates that the total volume of the chemically
stabilized sludge and soil from Lagoons 1-6 at the Site will be 11,500
cubic yards. (Site Lagoon 7 met the cleanup standards of the UAO, and
did not require removal.)
The UAO required UTA to develop a Removal Action Work Plan Sampling
Protocol. EPA approved the Removal Action Work Plan, including the
Sampling Protocol, on March 30, 1995. UTA's sampling and analysis
methods were conducted in accordance with the approved Removal Action
Work Plan.
UTA's sampling demonstration included data on 225 samples of
untreated waste from Lagoons 1-7, collected in April 1995, and 4
samples of treated waste from Lagoons 1-6, collected in September 1995.
UTA conducted sampling and analysis of the seven Site lagoons,
ranging in size from approximately \1/4\-1 acre, in accordance with the
Sampling Protocol of the Removal Action Work Plan required by the UAO.
Each lagoon was divided into a minimum of 4 quadrants; grab samples of
sludge or soil in each quadrant to be analyzed for all constituents
except volatile organic compounds (VOCs), were composited. VOC analysis
was performed on a minimum of two grab samples per lagoon. A total of
225 samples were collected and analyzed. The sampling and analysis were
performed in order to obtain representative samples of each

[[Page 14700]]
lagoon and determine whether the following Site soil removal cleanup
levels required by the UAO were met; areas not meeting these levels
were subject to the removal action:

Table 1.--Site Cleanup Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleanup
level,
parts
Parameter per
million
(ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)............................. 100
Cadmium (total)................................................ 60
Chromium (total)............................................... 400
Chromium VI.................................................... 205
Lead........................................................... 500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the exception of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), all
contaminants in treated and untreated waste were analyzed using SW-846
methods. All composite samples of untreated wastes were analyzed for
TPH, using Method 418.1, in ``Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes,'' EPA Publication EPA-600/4-79-020).
All composite samples of untreated wastes were analyzed for 64
semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), otherwise known as base-neutral
or acid extractables (BNAs, SW-846 extraction Method 3550, SW-846
analysis Method 8270); and the eight RCRA TC metals, arsenic, barium,
cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver (SW-846 Method
6010 for all except mercury; SW-846 Method 7471 for mercury). One
composite sample of untreated waste from each lagoon, except Lagoon 1
and Lagoon 3, was analyzed for metals on the Target Analyte List (TAL)
(SW-846 Method 6010), which includes aluminum, antimony, beryllium,
calcium, cobalt, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium,
sodium, thallium, vanadium, and zinc, in addition to the RCRA TC
metals. These metals are also referred to as ``priority pollutant
metals,'' regulated under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking
Water Act. Toxic TAL metals antimony, beryllium, and thallium, and RCRA
TC metals mercury, selenium, and silver were not detected in the
untreated waste samples above the quantitation limits of 10.0, 1.0,
1.0, 0.09, 1.0 and 1.0 mg/kg, respectively. The concentrations of all
metals which were detected in the untreated waste, except for cadmium
and chromium, were low enough that the UAO did not set cleanup levels
for them. Concentrations of metals which were detected in untreated
wastes are presented in Table 2. SVOCs were undetected in most of the
untreated waste samples at quantitation limits ranging from 0.33-0.83
mg/kg. Table 2 shows the SVOCs that were detected in untreated waste
samples; their concentrations were low enough that the UAO did not
require cleanup levels for them. At least two grab samples of untreated
waste from each lagoon were analyzed for 33 VOCs by SW-846 Method 8240;
these VOCs were not detected in most of the samples of untreated waste
at quantitation limits ranging from 0.005-0.010 mg/kg. The VOCs
detected in untreated waste are shown in Table 2. The concentrations
detected in the untreated waste were low enough that the UAO did not
establish cleanup levels for VOCs.
All of the analyses summarized in the preceding paragraph are
methods for total analysis of the samples; that is, the samples were
subjected to the appropriate SW-846 method without prior extraction by
means of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The
analytical result obtained in a total analysis is the concentration of
contaminant on a weight/weight basis, in units of milligrams of
contaminant per kilogram of sample (mg/kg). The result of a TCLP
analysis is the concentration of contaminant on a weight/volume basis
in an extract of the sample obtained by means of the TCLP, in units of
milligrams of contaminant per liter of TCLP extract.
The RCRA TC metals cadmium and total chromium were analyzed in all
composite samples of untreated waste using SW-846 Method 6010, with a
reported quantitation limit (total analysis on unextracted sample) of
1.0 mg/kg for each. Results are presented in Table 2. A total analysis
for hexavalent chromium was conducted on all samples (both composite
and grab) of untreated waste (SW-846 Method 7197), and was not detected
in any of the samples, at a quantitation limit of 10.0 mg/kg.
Therefore, UTA concluded that the total chromium concentrations in the
untreated lagoon samples were due to trivalent chromium. Based on the
analytical results for the untreated waste samples, UTA identified
cadmium, trivalent chromium, and TPH as the only constituents of
concern in the Site lagoons, because these were the only constituents
found with concentrations above the cleanup levels required by the UAO.
TCLP extracts of two samples of untreated waste from Lagoon 6 were
prepared and analyzed, because constituent concentrations by total
analysis (analysis of the unextracted samples) exceeded the cleanup
levels required by the UAO, to a greater extent than any of the other
samples. TCLP results for untreated waste samples from Lagoon 6, as
well as total analysis results for untreated waste samples from all
lagoons, are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.--Concentrations in Untreated Samples From Site Lagoons 1 Through 7

Maximum concentration \1\ in lagoons 1-7: (total analysis in mg/kg; TCLP in mg/l)
Constituent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lagoon Lagoon Lagoon Lagoon Lagoon Lagoon Lagoon
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic (total)....................................... 3.1 4.5 4.5 4.1 4.7 3.0 4.6
Barium (total)........................................ 144 79.3 91.6 89.5 71.2 370 71.5
Cadmium (total)....................................... 1010 345 383 239 141 1590 11.2
Cadmium (TCLP)........................................ NA NA NA NA NA 26.0 ............
Chromium (total)...................................... 1320 219 578 345 292 943 13.1
Chromium (TCLP)....................................... NA NA NA NA NA <0.50 ............
Lead (total).......................................... 19.5 10.10 25.9 9.0 9.5 26.2 17.9
Nickel (total)........................................ ............ 12 ............ 10.2 8.7 7.0 13.1
TPH (total)........................................... 440 217 278 100 58.7 272 52.7
Acetone (total)....................................... 0.492 -- 0.482 0.219 3.07 4.54 0.556
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (total)................... 0.47 -- 1.37 1.40 -- 0.77 --
Chlorobenzene (total)................................. 0.015 -- 0.078 -- -- -- --
Di-n-butylphthalate (total)........................... -- -- -- 0.63 -- -- --

[[Page 14701]]

1,2-dichloroethene (total)............................ 0.020 0.060 0.020 -- 0.007 -- --
Vinyl chloride (total)................................ 0.015 0.055 -- -- -- -- --
\1\ The concentration level for each constituent in each lagoon in Table 2 is the maximum found for that lagoon; the values for each lagoon are not
necessarily from the same sample. Frequently, a sample with a maximum concentration level for one constituent did not contain maximum levels for all
constituents.
< denotes undetected at the practical quantitation limit, the number to the right of the symbol <. NA means not analyzed.
--Denotes analyzed but not detected.

UTA reported that one sample of untreated waste from each lagoon
was tested for the hazardous characteristics of corrosivity,
ignitability, and reactivity for cyanide and sulfide, and that none of
the samples exhibited these hazardous characteristics.
UTA conducted a treatability study on samples of lagoon sludge in
order to determine the optimum conditions for chemical stabilization.
UTA found that the most effective chemical stabilization recipe to
achieve maximum immobilization of cadmium and chromium and maxium
compressive strength in the petitioned waste was 20% lime kiln dust
(LKD) and 5% portland cement (PC). Treatability study samples #32 and
#36 were composite sludge samples from Lagoons 1 through 6, and were
chemically stabilized with two different recipes. Sample #32 was
stabilized with 20% LKD only, and sample #36 was stabilized with 20%
LKD and 5% PC. Samples #6-32 and #6-36 were composite samples from
Lagoon 6, the most contaminated lagoon. Sample #6-32 was chemically
stabilized with 20% LKD only, and sample #6-36 was chemically
stabilized with 20% LKD and 5% PC. UTA reported that, prior to
treatment, samples #32, #36, #6-32, #6-36 were subjected to total
analysis for cadmium and chromium (SW-846 Method 6010). After
treatment, SW-846 Method 6010 was performed on TCLP extracts of treated
samples to determine concentrations of cadmium and chromium in the
extracts. Total analysis for 33 VOCs was performed on treated samples
(not on TCLP extracts), using SW-846 Method 8240. VOCs were not
detected in any of the samples of treated waste at quantitation limits
ranging from 0.005-0.010 mg/kg. Analytical results for treatability
study samples are shown in Table 3. UTA informed EPA during a meeting
on December 13, 1995, that these analytical results are for chemically
stabilized, but not fully cured, waste samples. Samples from Lagoon 7
were not included in the treatability study, because constituent
concentrations were found, by total analysis of these samples, to be
below the cleanup levels required by the UAO. Therefore, the UAO does
not require removal of Lagoon 7 sludge and soil.
UTA believes that the treatability study of chemical stabilization
of the lagoon waste indicated that cadmium and chromium concentrations
in the TCLP extracts were reduced to levels which would meet delisting
criteria, and that TPH constituents were removed in the offgas from the
chemical stabilization process.
If UTA's delisting petition is approved, UTA proposes to dispose of
the delisted waste either (a) onsite in accordance with a Closure/Post-
Closure Plan approved by the State of Tennessee or (b) in an off-site
Subtitle D landfill. Therefore, UTA subjected treatability study
samples #32 and #36, after treatment, to the Multiple Extraction
Procedure (MEP). The MEP (SW-846 Method 1320) is a test developed by
the Agency to assist in predicting the long-term leachability of
stabilized wastes. The MEP consists of a TCLP extraction of a sample
followed by nine sequential extractions of the same sample, using a
synthetic acid rain extraction fluid (prepared by adding a 60/40 weight
mixture of sulfuric acid and nitric acid to distilled deionized water
until the pH is 3.0 0.2). The sample which is subjected to
the nine sequential extractions consists of the solid phase remaining
after, and separated from, the initial TCLP extract. The Agency
designed the MEP to simulate multiple washings of percolating rainfall
in the field, and estimates that these extractions simulate
approximately 1,000 years of rainfall. (See 47 FR 52687, Nov. 22,
1982.) MEP results for samples #32 and #36 are presented in Table 3. In
response to a request by EPA for additional information, UTA reported a
quantitation limit of 0.01 mg/l for cadmium and chromium in the MEP
test on samples #32 and #36. Samples #32, #36, #6-32, and #6-36 were
also tested by the synthetic precipitation leaching procedure (SPLP,
SW-846 Method 1312), which consists of a single extraction by the same
synthetic acid rain solution used in the MEP. Total analysis, TCLP,
SPLP, and MEP results for stabilized, but not fully cured, treatability
study samples are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.--Analytical Results (ppm) for Treated Samples of Site Lagoon Sludge
[Chemically Stabilized, But Not Fully Cured]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals (untreated) TCLP (treated) SPLP (treated) Multiple extraction procedure (treated)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum conc./ Concentration in
Sample \1\ Cadmium Chromium extract number final extract
(Cd) (Cr) Cd Cr Cr Cr -------------------------------------------
Cd Cr Cd Cr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36........................................ 543 449 <0.10 <0.50 <0.01 0.07 0.56/6 0.07/1 0.03 0.02
6-36...................................... 777 289 <0.10 <0.50 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
32........................................ 543 449 <0.10 <0.50 <0.01 0.04 0.80/6 0.06/7 0.05 0.03

[[Page 14702]]

6-32...................................... 777 289 <0.10 <0.50 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sample 36 (composite of Lagoons 1-6) was stabilized with 20% lime kiln dust (LKD) and 5% portland cement (PC); Sample 6-36 (composite from Lagoon 6)
was stabilized with 20% LKD and 5% PC; Sample 32 (composite of Lagoons 1-6) was stabilized with 20% LKD only; Sample 6-32 (composite from Lagoon 6)
was stabilized with 20% LKD only.
< Denotes that the constituent was not detected above the practical quantitation limit, the number to the right of the symbol <.

UTA included Site groundwater monitoring data in its delisting
petition, because disposal option (a) above involves onsite disposal of
the treated waste. These data are shown in Table 4, and were obtained
by sampling 5 groundwater monitoring wells which had been installed to
assess the impact of untreated lagoon waste on Site groundwater. The
wells were installed upgradient, cross-gradient, and downgradient to
the Site lagoons in accordance with the Removal Action Work Plan
required by the UAO. The wells were sampled and analyzed for cadmium
and chromium in July 1995.

Table 4.--Groundwater Result Summary (ppm) Untreated Lagoon Waste
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State of
Constituent MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-5 Tennessee Federal MCL
MCL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium..................................................... <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.01 0.005
Chromium.................................................... 0.010 <0.010 0.011 <0.010 <0.010 0.05 0.10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< Denotes that the constituent was not detected above the practical quantitation limit, the number to the right of the symbol <.
Monitoring wells are numbered consecutively MW-1--MW-5.
MCL is the maximum contaminant level allowable in drinking water, as established by the Safe Drinking Water Act; MCLs for the State of Tennessee are the
levels adopted by State law.

UTA believes that the groundwater results summarized in Table 4
indicate that land disposal of chemically stabilized waste from Site
Lagoons 1-6 will not have an adverse impact on groundwater quality,
because UTA believes that the data in Table 4 demonstrate that the
untreated lagoon waste has not adversely affected groundwater quality.
In addition to the data in Table 4, the groundwater monitoring
information submitted by UTA also included: (1) Well location
information; and (2) water level contour maps.
EPA does not generally verify submitted test data before proposing
delisting decisions. The sworn affidavit submitted with this petition
binds the petitioner to present truthful and accurate results. The
Agency, however, has maintained a spot-check sampling and analysis
program to verify the representative nature of data for some percentage
of the submitted petitions. A spot-check visit to a selected facility
may be initiated before finalizing a delisting petition or after
granting an exclusion.
The Agency reviews a petitioner's estimates and, on occasion, has
requested a petitioner to re-evaluate estimated waste volume. EPA
accepts UTA's estimate of 11,500 cubic yards.

D. Agency Evaluation

The Agency considered the appropriateness of alternative waste
management scenarios for UTA's chemically stabilized sludge and soil
and decided, based on the information provided in the petition, that
disposal in a Subtitle D landfill is the most reasonable, worst-case
scenario for this waste. Under a landfill disposal scenario, the major
exposure route of concern for any hazardous constituents would be
ingestion of contaminated groundwater. The Agency, therefore, evaluated
UTA's petitioned waste using the EPA's Composite Model for Landfills
(EPACML), as modified for delisting evaluations, which predicts the
potential for groundwater contamination from wastes that are
landfilled. For metal constituents in 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1), EPA
also evaluated UTA's petitioned waste by comparing generic delisting
levels in Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1) with EPACML levels. See 60 FR
31108-31115, June 13, 1995, a Final Rule in which EPA evaluated a
petition and approved an exclusion based on comparing these generic
delisting levels with EPACML levels, and selecting the generic
delisting levels if they were lower than the levels generated from the
EPACML model. The EPACML model is more sophisticated than the Vertical
Horizontal Spread (VHS) model used previously by the Agency for
evaluating delisting petitions. See 56 FR 32993, July 18, 1991; and 56
FR 67197, Dec. 30, 1991 for a detailed description of the EPACML model,
the disposal assumptions, the modifications made for delisting, and the
benefits of replacing the VHS model with the EPACML model for
delisting. This model, which includes both unsaturated and saturated
zone transport modules, was used to predict reasonable worst-case
contaminant levels in groundwater at a compliance point (i.e., a
receptor well serving as a drinking-water supply). Specifically, the
model estimated the dilution/attenuation factor (DAF) resulting from
subsurface processes such as three-dimensional dispersion and dilution
from groundwater recharge for a specific volume of waste.
The Agency requests public comments on its use of the EPACML model
and generic delisting levels in Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1) as applied
to the evaluation of UTA's waste. EPA will

[[Page 14703]]
consider all comments on the validity of the EPACML model and generic
delisting levels in Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1) and the appropriateness
for their use here to evaluate the potential for groundwater
contamination if UTA's petitioned waste is disposed of in any Subtitle
D landfill.
For the evaluation of UTA's petitioned waste, the Agency used the
EPACML model to evaluate the mobility of hazardous inorganic
constituents detected in the extract of samples of UTA's petitioned
waste. The Agency's evaluation, using UTA's estimated one-time waste
volume of 11,500 cubic yards and the EPACML modified for delisting
yielded a dilution/attenuation factor (DAF) of 100. See Table 5, which
is a list of DAFs calculated by the EPACML model, modified for
delisting, for landfills receiving different annual volumes of waste.
The DAFs in Table 5 include a scaling factor of 20, because the average
life of a subtitle D landfill is 20 years and the typical delisting
petition is for continuously generated waste which is sent to a
landfill at a certain annual rate. That annual rate, the volume of
waste in cubic yards per year, can be converted to a landfill size for
input into the EPACML model to generate a DAF, with the assumption that
the annual rate supplied by the delisting petitioner is multiplied by
20 prior to the conversion. The Agency has completed these calculations
for a range of annual waste volumes and they are summarized in Table 5.
The Agency need not use the scaling factor of 20 for a petitioned one-
time exclusion. Therefore, instead of a DAF of 34 obtained from Table 5
for 11,500 cubic yards, the Agency could eliminate the scaling factor
of 20 by dividing 11,500 cubic yards by 20, thereby obtaining a waste
volume of 575 and the maximum possible DAF of 100 in Table 5. See 55 FR
11826, March 29, 1990; 56 FR 32993, July 18, 1991; and 56 FR 67197,
Dec. 30, 1991 for a detailed description of the EPACML model, the
disposal assumptions, and the modifications made for delisting. See
also 60 FR 62801, Dec. 7, 1995, for a previous delisting proposal in
which the Agency obtained a DAF of 48, instead of 14.8, from a table
containing the same landfill DAFs and waste volumes as Table 5, for a
one-time exclusion of a volume of waste equal to 110,000 cubic yards.
(See docket for this rule for further details on the use of the EPACML
model in evaluating UTA's waste.)

Table 5.--Dilution/Attenuation Factors (DAFs) for Landfills Calculated
by the EPACML Model, Modified for Delisting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAF (95th
Waste volume in cubic yards per year \1\ percentile)
----------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----
1,000................................................... \3\ 100
1,250................................................... 96
1,500................................................... 90
1,750................................................... 84
2,000................................................... 79
2,500................................................... 74
3,000................................................... 68
4,000................................................... 57
5,000................................................... 54
6,000................................................... 48
7,000................................................... 45
8,000................................................... 43
9,000................................................... 40
10,000.................................................. 36
12,500.................................................. 33
15,000.................................................. 29
20,000.................................................. 27
25,000.................................................. 24
30,000.................................................. 23
40,000.................................................. 20
50,000.................................................. 19
60,000.................................................. 17
80,000.................................................. 17
90,000.................................................. 16
100,000................................................. 15
150,000................................................. 14
200,000................................................. 13
250,000................................................. 12
300,000................................................. 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The waste volume includes a scaling factor of 20; see 56 FR 32993,
July 18, 1991; and 56 FR 67197, Dec. 30, 1991, and text of today's
proposed rule, for a discussion of the use of the scaling factor.
\2\ The DAFs calculated by the EPACML are a probability distribution
based on a range of values for each model input parameter; the input
parameters include such variables as landfill size, climatic data, and
hydrogeologic data. The 95th percentile DAF represents a value in
which one can have 95% confidence that a contaminant's concentration
will be reduced by a factor equal to the DAF, as the contaminant moves
from the bottom of the landfill through the subsurface environment to
a receptor well. For example, if the 95th percentile DAF is 10, and
the leachate concentration of cadmium at the bottom of the landfill is
0.05 mg/l, one can be 95% confident that the receptor well
concentration of cadmium will not exceed 0.005 mg/l. See 55 FR 11826,
March 29, 1990; 56 FR 32993, July 18, 1991; and 56 FR 67197, December
30, 1991.
\3\ DAF cutoff is 100, corresponding to the Toxicity Characteristic Rule
(55 FR 11826, March 29, 1990).

The Agency calculated delisting levels for UTA's chemically
stabilized F006, based on the EPACML Model, as shown in Table 6.

[[Page 14704]]

Table 6.--EPACML-Based Delisting Levels for Cadmium and Chromium in Landfill Waste (TCLP, mg/l)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste volume (cubic yards, Allowable
one-time exclusion) Allowable TCLP \1\
----------------------------- TCLP \1\ leachate
leachate concentration
concentration (mg/l) for
Constituent Volume; DAF MCL (mg/l) (mg/l) for waste,
Volume; DAF without waste, with without
with scaling scaling scaling scaling
factor=20 factor=20 factor of 20 factor and
and DAF of DAF of
34=34 x MCL 100=100 x MCL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium........................................................................ 11,500; 34 575; 100 0.005 0.17 0.5
Chromium....................................................................... 11,500; 34 575; 100 0.10 3.4 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of September 25, 1990 the Agency adopted the TCLP as a replacement for and improvement upon the Extraction Procedure (EP) leachate test in its
hazardous waste regulatory program. Thus, the Agency now requires that petitioners provide TCLP data rather than EP data in support of their
petitions. The Agency believes that the maximum leachable concentrations of samples analyzed using the TCLP will be more representative of the
potential mobility of constituents from UTA's petitioned waste than if EP extracts of samples were analyzed.

These calculated delisting levels are the concentrations in the
TCLP extracts of the waste that the EPACML model predicts will not
result in contaminant levels above MCLs in groundwater at receptor
wells. The confidence level of this prediction is 95%, which is also
the level required for evaluating groundwater monitoring data subject
to 40 CFR part 264. See 56 FR 32998, July 18, 1981. The Agency uses
maximum contaminant levels, when they are available, as the health-
based levels for groundwater. See the ``Docket Report on Health-based
Levels and Solubilities Used in the Evaluation of Delisting Petitions,
Submitted Under 40 CFR Sec. 260.20 and Sec. 260.22,'' December 1994,
located in the RCRA public docket, for the Agency's methods of
calculating health-based levels for evaluating delisting petitions from
MCLs, and when MCLs are not available.
The Agency did not evaluate the mobility of constituents that were
undetected in UTA's petitioned waste because the non-detectable values
were obtained using the appropriate SW-846 analytical test methods and
adequate detection limits (see Tables 2 and 3). The Agency believes
that it is inappropriate to evaluate non-detectable concentrations of a
constituent of concern in its modeling efforts for RCRA delistings if
the non-detectable value was obtained using the appropriate analytical
method. If a constituent cannot be detected (when using the appropriate
analytical method with an adequate detection limit), the Agency
believes it is reasonable to assume that the constituent is not present
and therefore does not present a threat to either human health or the
environment.
The Agency did not calculate EPACML-based delisting levels in the
petitioned waste for arsenic, barium, VOCs, and SVOCs because levels of
these constituents in the untreated waste were below the health-based
levels used in delisting decision-making, and VOCs were undetected in
the petitioned (treated) waste. See Tables 2, 3, and 7.

Table 7.--Maximum Concentrations in Untreated Samples From Site Lagoons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum \2\
concentration
Maximum in TCLP TCLP leachate
concentration leachate, (mg/ concentration Health-based
Constituent \1\ in site l), divided by level \4\
lagoons (total calculated DAF of 100 (mg/l)
analysis, mg/kg) from total \3\ (mg/l)
concentration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic........................................... 4.7 0.8 0.008 0.05
Barium............................................ 370 60 0.6 2
Lead.............................................. 26.2 4 0.04 0.015
Nickel............................................ 13.1 2 0.02 0.1
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate........................ 1.40 0.2 0.002 0.006
Di-n-butylphthalate............................... 0.63 0.1 0.001 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The concentration level for each constituent in Table 7 is the maximum concentration found for that
constituent in Site lagoons.
\2\ The maximum possible concentration in a TCLP leachate of untreated waste, assuming all the constituent is
leachable, and assuming the dilution factor of 20 for the TCLP on 100% solids has been reduced to 6 by a
moisture content of 70% in the untreated waste.
\3\ The DAF of 100 was obtained from Table 5 for a one-time waste volume of 11,500 cubic yards of stabilized
waste, by eliminating the scaling factor of 20. See 55 FR 11826, March 29, 1990; 56 FR 32993, July 18, 1991;
and 56 FR 67197, Dec. 30, 1991 for a detailed description of the EPACML model, the disposal assumptions, and
the modifications made for delisting. See also 60 FR 62801, Dec. 7, 1995, for delisting proposal for a one-
time exclusion and a DAF obtained by eliminating the scaling factor of 20.
\4\ See the ``Docket Report on Health-based Levels and Solubilities Used in the Evaluation of Delisting
Petitions, Submitted Under 40 CFR Sec. 260.20 and Sec. 260.22,'' December 1994, located in the RCRA public
docket, for the Agency's methods of calculating health-based levels for evaluating delisting petitions from
MCLs, and when MCLs are not available.

Lead is the only constituent which exceeds the health-based level,
based on the assumptions made in the calculations for Table 7. Since
this was found for the maximum lead level in untreated waste, the
Agency believes that lead in the petitioned waste, which will be
treated and cured, will not adversely affect either human health or the
environment.
UTA submitted analytical results for tests of reactive cyanide and
reactive sulfide in the untreated lagoon waste; the concentrations of
reactive cyanide and reactive sulfide were well below the

[[Page 14705]]
Agency's interim standards of 250 mg/kg and 500 mg/kg, respectively.
See ``Interim Agency Thresholds for Toxic Gas Generation,'' July 12,
1985, internal Agency Memorandum in the RCRA public docket, and SW-846
Chapter 7, Section 7.3.3.2. Therefore, reactive cyanide and sulfide
levels in UTA's petitioned waste would not cause this waste to be
considered a hazardous waste for Subtitle C purposes and are not of
concern.
Although lead, nickel, and cyanide concentrations in untreated
waste indicate they may not pose a significant threat, the Agency
proposes to select as delisting levels for the petitioned waste the
generic delisting levels for cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, and
cyanide in 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1). These levels are lower than
the EPACML-based levels; both generic and EPACML-based levels are
presented in Table 8.

Table 8.--Generic Delisting Levels and EPACML-Based Delisting Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPACML-
Generic based
delisting delisting
level from level DAF
Sec. = 100
Constituent 261.3 (TCLP, mg/
(TCLP, mg/ l) (level
l, except = DAF x
for MCL = 100
cyanide) x MCL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.......................................... 0.050 0.50
Chromium......................................... 0.33 10
Lead............................................. 0.15 1.5
Nickel........................................... 1.0 10
Cyanide (total) (mg/kg) \1\...................... 1.8 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The cyanide (total, not amenable) concentration must not exceed 1.8
mg/kg, by total analysis, not analysis of leachate. Cyanide
concentrations must be measured by the method specified in 40 CFR
268.40, Note 7.

UTA reported that tests on the untreated lagoon waste demonstrated
that it did not exhibit the characteristics of ignitability or
corrosivity. Therefore, the petitioned waste would not be considered a
hazardous waste for Subtitle C purposes because of these
characteristics.
The Agency concluded after reviewing UTA's data on the Multiple
Extraction Procedure (MEP, Tables 3 and 10) that the long-term
leachability of the petitioned waste is unlikely to have an adverse
impact on either human health or the environment. The data for treated,
but not fully cured waste, in Table 3, indicate that a relatively small
percent of the available cadmium and chromium would leach from this
waste, after disposal in a subtitle D landfill, over a period of 1000
years. Furthermore, the data in Table 3 indicate that a period of more
than 100 years would be required for the leachate to contain a
concentration of cadmium greater than the EPACML-based delisting level
for a DAF of 100, in Table 6. EPACML-based-delisting levels, with a DAF
of 100 or 34, for chromium are not exceeded in any of the MEP extracts.
The MEP pH data in Table 10 indicate that the pH of the treated, but
not fully cured waste would remain alkaline for a period of more than
100 years.
Sample calculations which the Agency used to evaluate the MEP data
are presented in Table 9.

Table 9.--Long-Term Leachability Calculations From MEP Data for Stabilized, But Not Fully Cured Waste
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total chromium (Cr) in MEP extracts (mg) Total cadmium (Cd) Total Cr available (mg) \2\; % Total Cd available (mg); % leached EPACML-based
\1\ in MEP extracts (mg) leached after final extract (1000- after final extract (1000-year delisting level,
--------------------------------------------------------------- year estimate) \3\ estimate) DAF 100; Sec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 261.3 generic
delisting level
Sample #32 Sample Sample Sample (mg/1, in TCLP
#36 #32 #36 Sample #32 Sample #36 Sample #32 Sample #36 leachate)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.64......................... 0.74 3.01 2.49 28.9; 2.2%...... 44.9; 1.6%...... 77.7; 3.9%...... 54.3; 4.6%...... Cr: 10; 0.33.
Cd: 0.5; 0.05.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentrations of Cd in 6th and 7th extracts of treated Sample #32 (0.80, 0.52) and 6th extract of Sample #36 (0.56) are greater than generic delisting
level and EPACML-based DAF of 100 x MCL.
Concentrations of Cd in 8th extract of treated Sample #32 (0.11) and 7th extract of treated Sample #36 (0.46) are greater than generic delisting level,
but less than EPACML-based DAF of 100 x MCL.
\1\ Milligrams of Cr in all MEP extracts of treated Sample #32, assuming a 100-gram sample is sequentially extracted with 2 liters of extraction fluid/
extract = 2 l (.04 + .04 + .04 + .03 + .02 + .03 + .06 + .03 + .03) = 2 (.32) = .64 mg. See Table 3; the SPLP result is used for the concentration in
the first of 9 MEP extractions. The same assumptions were used to calculate the values for Cd in Sample #32 and Sample #36 and Cr in Sample #36.
\2\ Total concentration Cr in untreated Sample #32 = 289 mg/kg = 28.9 mg/100 g. See Table 3, and with the assumption of a 100-gram sample.
\3\ % leached after the last extract, estimated to simulate 1000 years of acid rain (See 47 FR 52687, November 22, 1982): (.64 x 100)/28.9 = 2.2%
Similar calculations were made for Cd in treated Sample #32 and for Cr and Cd in treated Sample #36:
Milligrams Cd MEP extracts of treated Sample #32 = 2 l (.005 + .005 + .005 + .005 + .005 + .80 + .52 + .11 + .05) = 2 x 1.505 = 3.01 mg; Total Cd in
untreated Sample #32 = 777 mg/kg = 77.7 mg/100 g; % leached in 1000 years = (3.01 x 100)/77.7 = 3.9%.
Milligrams of Cr treated Sample #36 = 2 l x (.07 + .07 + .03 + .03 + .02 + .04 + .05 + .04 + .02) = 2 (.37) = .74 mg; Total Cr in Sample #36 = 449 mg/kg
= 44.9 mg/100 g; % leached in 1000 years = (100 x .74)/44.9 = 1.6%.
Milligrams of Cd in treated Sample #36 = 2 l x (.005 + .01 + .005 + .005 + .03 + .56 + .46 + .14 + .03) = 2 x 1.245 = 2.49 mg; Total Cd in Sample #36 =
543 mg/kg = 54.3 mg/100 g; % leached in 1000 years = (100 x 2.49)/54.3 = 4.6%.

Table 10.--pH Data From MEP Extractions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH of each MEP extract at beginning and end of extraction (top value is beginning; bottom value is
end)
Sample No. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ext. # 1 Ext. # 2 Ext. # 3 Ext. # 4 Ext. # 5 Ext. # 6 Ext. # 7 Ext. # 8 Ext. # 9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32.............................................. 12.0 11.6 11.3 10.7 10.0 7.90 6.40 4.50 3.00

[[Page 14706]]

11.6 11.3 10.7 10.0 7.90 6.40 4.50 3.00 3.00
36.............................................. 11.8 11.6 11.4 10.8 10.6 7.2 6.4 4.0 3.4
11.6 11.4 10.8 10.6 7.2 6.4 4.0 3.4 3.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------
The Agency concluded after reviewing UTA's waste management and
waste history information that no other hazardous constituents, other
than those tested for, are likely to be present in UTA's petitioned
waste. In addition, on the basis of test results and information
provided by UTA, pursuant to Sec. 260.22, the Agency concludes that the
petitioned waste does not exhibit any of the characteristics of
ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. See Secs. 261.21, 261.22, and
261.23, respectively.
During its evaluation of UTA's petition, the Agency also considered
the potential impact of the petitioned waste via nongroundwater routes.
With regard to airborne dispersal of waste, the Agency evaluated the
potential hazards resulting from airborne exposure to waste
contaminants from the petitioned waste using an air dispersion model
for releases from a landfill. The results of this evaluation indicated
that there is no substantial present or potential hazard to human
health from airborne exposure to constituents from UTA's petitioned
waste. (A description of the Agency's assessment of the potential
impact of airborne dispersal of UTA's waste is presented in the RCRA
public docket for today's proposed rule.)
The Agency also considered the potential impact of the petitioned
waste via a surface water route. The Agency believes that containment
structures at municipal solid waste landfills can effectively control
surface water runoff, as the recently promulgated Subtitle D
regulations (see 56 FR 50978, October 9, 1991) prohibit pollutant
discharges into surface waters.
Furthermore, if the waste were to remain on-site, the disposal
landfill containing the petitioned waste would be closed in accordance
with a closure/post-closure plan approved by the State of Tennessee.
Therefore, any significant future releases of contaminants from the
petitioned waste at its current location via a surface water route are
highly unlikely.
While some contamination of surface water is possible through
runoff from a waste disposal area (i.e., storm water), the Agency
believes that the dissolved concentrations of any hazardous
constituents in the runoff will tend to be lower than the extraction
procedure test results reported in today's notice because of the
aggressive acidic medium used for extraction in the TCLP.
The Agency also believes that, in general, leachate derived from
the waste will not directly enter a surface water body without first
traveling through the saturated subsurface where dilution of hazardous
constituents may occur.
In addition, any transported contaminants would be further diluted
in the receiving water body. Significant releases to surface water due
to erosion of undissolved particulates in runoff are also unlikely, due
to the controls noted above. Nevertheless, the Agency evaluated the
potential hazards resulting from possible releases from Site Lagoon 6,
which may become an onsite landfill. The results of these evaluations
indicate that UTA's waste would not present a threat to human health or
the environment. (See the docket to today's rule for a description of
this analysis).

E. Conclusion

The Agency believes that UTA has demonstrated that the petitioned
waste is not hazardous for Subtitle C purposes. The Agency believes
that the sampling procedures used by UTA were adequate, and that the
samples collected from the lagoons are representative of the waste
contained in the lagoons, and that the treatability study samples are
representative of the petitioned waste, to be generated later.
The Agency, therefore, is proposing that UTA's petitioned waste be
delisted as non-hazardous and thus not subject to regulation under RCRA
Subtitle C. The Agency proposes to grant a conditional, upfront, one-
time exclusion to United Technology Automotive's Detroit, Michigan,
facility for the chemically stabilized sludge and soil described in its
petition as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006 and to be generated while
conducting a CERCLA removal of untreated sludge and soil from Lagoons
1-6 at the Highway 61 Industrial Site in Memphis, Tennessee (``the
Site'').
The Agency's decision to exclude this waste is based on
descriptions of waste management and waste history, results from the
analysis of samples of a treatability study on the chemical
stabilization process which will generate the petitioned waste, results
from the analysis of samples of the untreated waste from which the
petitioned waste will be generated, and groundwater monitoring data
available for untreated waste contained in Site lagoons. The Agency's
decision is also contingent upon verification testing conditions. If
the proposed rule becomes effective, the exclusion will be valid only
if the petitioner demonstrates that the petitioned waste meets the
verification testing conditions and delisting levels in the amended
Table 1 of Appendix IX of 40 CFR Part 261. If the Agency approves that
demonstration, the petitioned waste would not be subject to regulation
under 40 CFR Parts 262 through 268 and the permitting standards of 40
CFR Part 270. Although management of the waste covered by this petition
would, upon final promulgation, be relieved from Subtitle C
jurisdiction, the waste would remain a solid waste under RCRA. As such,
the waste must be handled in accordance with all applicable Federal and
State solid waste management regulations.

III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion

This proposed rule, if promulgated, would be issued under the
Federal (RCRA) delisting program. States, however, are allowed to
impose their own, non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more
stringent than EPA's, pursuant to section 3009 of RCRA. These more
stringent requirements may include a provision which prohibits a
Federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the States. Because a
petitioner's waste may be regulated under a dual system (i.e., both
Federal and State programs), petitioners are urged to contact State
regulatory authorities to determine the current status of their wastes
under the State laws. Furthermore, some States are authorized to
administer a delisting program in lieu of the Federal program, i.e., to
make their own delisting decisions. Therefore, this proposed

[[Page 14707]]
exclusion, if promulgated, would not apply in those authorized States.
If the petitioned waste will be transported to any State with delisting
authorization, UTA must obtain delisting authorization from that State
before the waste may be managed as nonhazardous in that State.

IV. Effective Date

This rule, if made final, will become effective immediately upon
final publication. 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. That is the case here, because
this rule, if finalized, would reduce the existing requirements for
persons generating hazardous wastes. In light of the unnecessary
hardship and expense that would be imposed on this petitioner by an
effective date six months after publication and the fact that a six-
month deadline is not necessary to achieve the purpose of Section 3010,
EPA believes that this exclusion should be effective immediately upon
final publication. These reasons also provide a basis for making this
rule effective immediately, upon final publication, under the
Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 USC 553(d).

V. Regulatory Impact

Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory
actions. The effect of this proposed rule would be to reduce the
overall costs and economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management
regulations. This reduction would be achieved by excluding waste from
EPA's lists of hazardous wastes, thereby enabling this facility to
treat its waste as nonhazardous. Therefore, this proposed rule would
not be a significant regulatory action under the Executive Order, and
no assessment of costs and benefits is necessary. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has also exempted this proposed rule from
the requirement for OMB review under Section (6) of Executive Order
12866.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612,
whenever an agency is required to publish a general notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the
Administrator or delegated representative certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
This rule, if promulgated, will not have an adverse economic impact
on any small entities since its effect would be to reduce the overall
costs of EPA's hazardous waste regulations and would be limited to one
facility. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this proposed regulation,
if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This regulation, therefore, does
not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

Information collection and record-keeping requirements associated
with this proposed rule have been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980 (Pub.L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB
Control Number 2050-0053.

VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``UMRA''), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22,
1995, EPA generally must prepare a written statement for rules with
Federal mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local,
and tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of
$100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is required
for EPA rules, under section 205 of the UMRA EPA must identify and
consider alternatives, including the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the
rule. EPA must select that alternative, unless the Administrator
explains in the final rule why it was not selected or it is
inconsistent with law. Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
tribal governments, it must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, giving them meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,
educating, and advising them on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate for regulatory
purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. EPA finds that today's
proposed delisting decision is deregulatory in nature and does not
impose any enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments
or the private sector. In addition, the proposed delisting does not
establish any regulatory requirements for small governments and so does
not require a small government agency plan under UMRA section 203.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

Environmental Protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).

Dated: March 20, 1996
James S. Kutzman,
Acting Director, Waste Management Division.

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, part 261 add the following
wastestream in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:

Appendix IX--Wastes Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and 260.22

[[Page 14708]]

Table 1.--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
United Technologies Automotive.......................... Detroit, Michigan...................... Chemically stabilized wastewater treatment sludge and
soil (CSWWTSS) (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006) that
United Technologies Automotive (UTA) will generate
during CERCLA removal of untreated sludge and soil
(EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006) from six lagoons at
the Highway 61 Industrial Site in Memphis,
Tennessee. This is an upfront, one-time exclusion
for approximately 11,500 cubic yards of waste that
will be disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill or an
on-site landfill approved by the State of Tennessee
after [insert date of final rule.] UTA must
demonstrate that the following conditions are met
for the exclusion to be valid:
(1) Verification Testing Requirements: Sample
collection and analyses, including quality control
procedures must be performed according to SW-846
methodologies.
(A) Initial Verification Testing: UTA must collect
and analyze a representative sample of every batch,
for eight sequential batches of CSWWTSS generated
during full-scale operation. A batch is the CSWWTSS
generated during one run of the stabilization
process. UTA must analyze for the constituents
listed in Condition (3). A minimum of four composite
samples must be collected as representative of each
batch. UTA must report operational and analytical
test data, including quality control information, no
later than 60 days after the generation of the first
batch of CSWWTSS.
(B) Subsequent Verification Testing: If the initial
verification testing in Condition (1)(A) is
successful, i.e., delisting levels of condition (3)
are met for all of the eight initial batches, UTA
must test a minimum of 5% of the remaining batches
of CSWWTSS. UTA must collect and analyze at least
one composite sample representative of that 5%. The
composite must be made up of representative samples
collected from each batch included in the 5%. UTA
may, at its discretion, analyze composite samples
gathered more frequently to demonstrate that smaller
batches of waste are non-hazardous.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling: UTA must store as
hazardous all CSWWTSS generated until verification
testing as specified in Condition (1)(A) and (1)(B),
as appropriate, is completed and valid analyses
demonstrate that Condition (3) is satisfied. If the
levels of constituents measured in the samples of
CSWWTSS do not exceed the levels set forth in
Condition (3), then the CSWWTSS is non-hazardous and
may be managed in accordance with all applicable
solid waste regulations. If constituent levels in a
sample exceed any of the delisting levels set forth
in Condition (3), the batch of CSWWTSS generated
during the time period corresponding to this sample
must be retreated until it meets the delisting
levels set forth in Condition (3), or managed and
disposed of in accordance with Subtitle C of RCRA.
(3) Delisting Levels: All leachable concentrations
for these metals must not exceed the following
levels (ppm): Cadmium--0.05; chromium--0.33; lead--
0.15; and nickel--1.0. Metal concentrations must be
measured in the waste leachate by the method
specified in 40 CFR 261.24. The cyanide (total, not
amenable) concentration must not exceed 1.8 mg/kg,
by total analysis, not analysis of leachate. Cyanide
concentrations must be measured by the method
specified in 40 CFR 268.40, Note 7.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: UTA must notify
the Agency in writing when significant changes in
the stabilization process are necessary (e.g., use
of new stabilization reagents). Condition (1)(A)
must be repeated for significant changes in
operating conditions.
(5) Data Submittals: UTA must notify EPA when the
full-scale chemical stabilization process is
scheduled to start operating. Data obtained in
accordance with Conditions (1)(A) must be submitted
to Jeaneanne M. Gettle, Acting Chief, RCRA
Compliance Section, Mail Code: 4WD-RCRA, U.S. EPA,
Region 4, 345 Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta,
Georgia. 30365. This notification is due no later
than 60 days after the first batch of CSWWTSS is
generated. Records of operating conditions and
analytical data from Condition (1) must be compiled,
summarized, and maintained by UTA for a minimum of
five years, and must be furnished upon request by
EPA or the State of Tennessee, and made available
for inspection. Failure to submit the required data
within the specified time period or maintain the
required records for the specified time will be
considered by EPA, at its discretion, sufficient
basis to revoke the exclusion to the extent directed
by EPA. All data must be accompanied by a signed
copy of the following certification statement to
attest to the truth and accuracy of the data
submitted:
Under civil and criminal penalty of law for the
making or submission of false or fraudulent
statements or representations (pursuant to the
applicable provisions of the Federal Code, which
include, but may not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001
and 42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify that the information
contained or accompanying this document is true,
accurate and complete.

[[Page 14709]]

As to the (those) identified section(s) of this
document for which I cannot personally verify its
(their) truth and accuracy, I certify as the company
official having supervisory responsibility for the
persons who, acting under my direct instructions,
made the verification that this information is true,
accurate and complete.
In the event that any of this information is
determined by EPA in its sole discretion to be
false, inaccurate or incomplete, and upon conveyance
of this fact to the company, I recognize and agree
that this exclusion of waste will be void as if it
never had effect or to the extent directed by EPA
and that the company will be liable for any actions
taken in contravention of the company's RCRA and
CERCLA obligations premised upon the company's void
exclusion.

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 96-8140 Filed 4-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P