[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