[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 139 (Thursday, July 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37397-37403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18044]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261

[FRL-5536-5]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) today is 
granting a petition submitted by United Technologies Automotive, Inc. 
(UTA), Dearborn, 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. In accordance with the conditions specified in this final 
rule, the petitioned waste is excluded from the requirements of 
hazardous waste regulations under Subtitle C of the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
    The Agency also proposed to use two methods to evaluate the 
potential impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the 
environment: A fate and transport model (the EPA Composite Model for 
Landfills, ``EPACML'' model), based on the waste-specific information 
provided by the petitioner; and 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 proposed 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 compared 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), and proposed to use the lower of these two 
concentrations as the delisting level for each hazardous constituent in 
the waste. In response to comments received on the proposed rule, the 
delisting levels in this final rule are based on the EPACML model, 
rather than the generic levels in Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 18, 1996.

ADDRESSES: The RCRA regulatory docket for this final 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 reference number for this docket is R4-96-UTEF. 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. For 
copying at the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, 
please see below.

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 (TDEC), 
5th Floor, L & C Tower, 401 Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee 37243-
1535, (615) 532-0850. If you wish to copy documents at TDEC, please 
contact Mr. Ingram for copying procedures and costs.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Authority

    Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition the Agency 
to remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding them 
from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Secs. 261.31 and 
261.32. Specifically, Sec. 260.20 allows any person to petition the 
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through 
265 and 268 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and 
Sec. 260.22 provides generators the opportunity to petition the 
Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator-specific'' basis from 
the hazardous waste lists. Petitioners must provide sufficient 
information to EPA to allow the Agency to determine that the waste to 
be excluded does not meet any of the criteria under which the waste was 
listed as a hazardous waste.
    In addition, the Administrator must determine, where he 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.
    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

[[Page 37398]]

Division [Regional Delegation of Authority 8-19].

B. History of This Rulemaking

    United Technologies Automotive, Inc. (UTA), Dearborn, Michigan, 
petitioned the Agency 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. After evaluating the petition, 
EPA proposed, on April 3, 1996, to exclude UTA's waste from the lists 
of hazardous waste under Secs. 261.31 and 261.32 (see 61 FR 14696-
14709, April 3, 1996).
    This rulemaking addresses public comments received on the proposal 
and finalizes the proposed decision to grant UTA's petition.

II. Disposition of Delisting Petition United Technologies 
Automotive, Inc., Dearborn, Michigan

A. Proposed Exclusion

    United Technologies Automotive, Inc. (UTA), located in Dearborn, 
Michigan, petitioned the Agency to exclude, conditionally, on a one-
time, upfront basis, the 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''). 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. 
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 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 proposed 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. See 57 FR 7628, Mar. 3, 1992. 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 its 
waste, generated by treatment of sludges from Site Lagoons 1 through 6. 
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).
    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 the 
proposed rule and in today's final 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.
    After reviewing the petition, the Agency proposed to grant the 
exclusion to UTA, on April 3, 1996. See 61 FR 14696-14709, April 3, 
1996, for details.
    Today's final rule granting this petition for delisting is the 
result of the Agency's evaluation of UTA's petition and response to 
public comments.

B. Response to Public Comments

    Comments: The Agency received public comments from two interested 
parties (UTA (1) and Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc. (HRD) 
(2)) on the April 3, 1996 proposal. The docket reference numbers for 
these comments are R4-UTEP-18 and R4-UTEP-19, respectively, and the 
comments are available for viewing at

[[Page 37399]]

the EPA Library, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 345 
Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30365, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The comments 
are also included in the docket for this final rule, reference number 
R4-96-UTEF, available at the EPA, Region 4, Library.
    Commenter (1), UTA: Specific comments included the following, where 
page numbers in parentheses are page numbers of the proposed rule (61 
FR 14696-14709, April 3, 1996):
    (a) UTA is located in Dearborn, Michigan (page 14696);
    (b) Samples #36 and #6-36 were stabilized with 10% lime kiln dust 
and 5% portland cement (page 14701);
    (c) A revised estimate of the treated waste volume is 20,500 cubic 
yards, which the commenter states should not affect the dilution 
attenuation factor (DAF) of 100, in the proposed rule (pages 14699, 
14702, 14703, and 14708); and
    (d) If the delisting petition is approved, UTA proposes to dispose 
of the delisted waste at Browning-Ferris Industries' (BFI's) Subtitle D 
facility in South Shelby County, Tennessee (page 14701).
    The commenter stated the following objections to the Agency's 
delisting levels and the method for determining them:
    (e) The generic levels in 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1) were deemed 
inappropriate by UTA, because they are technology-based; UTA considers 
the risk-based levels obtained by the EPACML model to be more 
appropriate (pages 14696, 14705, 14708); and
    (f) UTA disagrees with the appropriateness of EPA's statement that 
it is generally unable to predict or control how a delisted waste is 
managed, in that UTA's waste is subject to a CERCLA Administrative 
Order; UTA also believes that the Agency should consider the site-
specific conditions of BFI's Subtitle D landfill in Shelby County, 
Tennessee (page 14698).
    The majority of the remaining comments dealt with a comparison 
between the proposed delisting levels and levels proposed in the 
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) (see 60 FR 66334, December 
21, 1995). UTA believes that the HWIR levels are more appropriate for 
its petitioned waste than the proposed delisting levels.
    Response to Commenter (1), UTA: The changes recommended in specific 
comments (a), (b), (c), and (d) have been made, and added to the final 
rule and the docket for the final rule. In the April 3, 1996 proposal, 
the Agency determined that disposal in any Subtitle D landfill is the 
most reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for UTA's petitioned 
waste, that the major exposure route of concern for any hazardous 
constituents would be ingestion of contaminated groundwater, and that 
the EPACML fate and transport model, modified for delisting, yielded a 
DAF of 100 for a one-time disposal of 11,500 cubic yards. EPA agrees 
with UTA that the revised estimated volume of 20,500 cubic yards yields 
a DAF closer to 100 than to 96. However, in order to account for 
possible variations associated with volume estimates, the Agency has 
selected a slightly lower, thus more stringent, DAF of 96 for UTA's 
revised estimated volume of 20,500 cubic yards, which corresponds to a 
one-time waste volume of 25,000 cubic yards. In keeping with past 
delisting decisions for chemically stabilized waste where the 
constituents of concern are immobilized (see, for example, 61 FR 18088-
18091, April 24, 1996 and 60 FR 31107-31115, June 13, 1995), the Agency 
used concentrations in waste leachate as delisting levels for this 
final rule, rather than total concentrations, such as proposed in the 
HWIR.
    With regard to the objection raised in subparagraph (f) above, 
EPA's position continues to be that site-specific conditions at 
landfills are not appropriate for consideration in delisting petitions. 
Commenter (1), UTA, did not submit site-specific conditions. EPA notes 
that both the CERCLA Administrative Order and Section II.E. of the 
proposed rule (61 FR 14706, April 3, 1996) state that UTA's petitioned 
waste is subject to all applicable Federal and State solid waste 
management regulations.
    After careful consideration, EPA agrees that the objection raised 
by UTA in subparagraph (e) above is reasonable, in that the generic 
levels of Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1), in 60 FR 31107-31115, June 13, 
1995, were selected for the delisting of a large-volume, continually 
generated, multi-site waste, rather than for a one-time delisting of a 
relatively small volume of waste. For this reason, and because the 
petitioned waste is subject to a CERCLA Administrative Order, the 
Agency is finalizing the exclusion language in 40 CFR part 261, 
Appendix IX, Table 1 to delist 20,500 cubic yards of the petitioned 
waste, UTA's revised estimated volume as stated in its comments, with 
the delisting levels revised as shown in Table 1 below. The levels were 
calculated by multiplying the appropriate health-based level for each 
constituent, which is the maximum contaminant level (MCL), as 
established by the Safe Drinking Water Act, by an EPACML DAF of 96.

  Table 1.--Revised Delisting Levels for Treated Waste Generated by UTA at Highway 61 Industrial Site, Memphis, 
                                                    Tennessee                                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Delisting                                      
                                                                level final                                     
                                                    Maximum    rule [= (DAF                                     
                  Constituent                     contaminant    of 96) x    Delisting level proposed rule (mg/l
                                                  level (MCL)   MCL] (mg/l        in TCLP \1\  leachate \2\)    
                                                    (mg/l)      in TCLP \1\                                     
                                                                 Leachate)                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium........................................         0.005          0.48  0.05.                              
Chromium.......................................         0.1            9.6   0.33.                              
Lead...........................................     \3\ 0.015          1.4   0.15.                              
Nickel.........................................     \4\ 0.1            9.6   1.0.                               
Cyanide........................................         0.2           19.2   1.8 mg/kg \2\.                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ TCLP stands for the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, 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).                        
\2\ The cyanide delisting level in the proposed rule is in units of mg/kg, by total analysis of unextracted     
  waste.                                                                                                        
\3\ This value is an action level, as defined in 40 CFR 141.2, rather than a MCL.                               

[[Page 37400]]

                                                                                                                
\4\ This value is from Draft 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, dated July 1994, rather than a MCL.
  This document is in the docket for the proposed rule, and is one of the documents with reference number R4-96-
  UTEP-8.                                                                                                       


    Commenter (2), HRD: The commenter did not object to the proposed 
decision to delist UTA's waste, since the constituent levels in the 
waste were low enough that HRD did not feel that any statutory mandates 
were violated.
    The commenter summarized two principal statutory requirements that 
HRD feels must be accounted for in order for any delisting decision to 
be valid:
    (a) The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 established a hierarchy of 
waste management methods, in order of decreasing preference, as (1) 
Source reduction, (2) recycling, (3) treatment, and (4) land disposal; 
the commenter emphasized that recycling, such as high temperature metal 
recovery, is favored over waste treatment methods, such as 
stabilization; the commenter also stated that the low levels of metals 
in the petitioned waste were not amenable to recycling; and
    (b) The Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) of the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) include stringent treatment 
standards which must be met prior to land disposal of hazardous wastes; 
the commenter felt that LDR treatment standards should be one of the 
``factors (including additional constituents) other than those for 
which the waste was listed'' that could cause the waste to be a 
hazardous waste or to be retained as a hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 
260.22(d)(2)); again the commenter did not feel that the constituent 
levels in the petitioned waste were high enough to exceed LDR treatment 
standards.
    Response to Commenter (2), HRD: EPA agrees with the commenter that 
the statutory information summarized above presents very important 
considerations. The Agency also agrees that the decision to delist the 
waste which is the subject of this final rule is not in conflict with 
either of these statutes.
    It is also EPA's position that if Agency evaluation of a delisting 
petition reveals that the petitioned waste meets all the appropriate 
criteria in Petitions to Delist Hazardous Wastes--A Guidance Manual, 
Second Edition, EPA Publication No. EPA/530-R-93-007, March 1993 (see 
docket to the proposed rule, reference number R4-96-UTEP-8), the 
conditions specified in 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2) have been met, and the 
waste need not be subject to RCRA Subtitle C. That is to say, the 
delisting levels established by the Agency are protective of human 
health and the environment, and a waste that meets these levels does 
not have factors that ``could cause the waste to be a hazardous 
waste.'' LDR treatment standards are based on what is achievable by the 
best demonstrated available technology (BDAT). Because the standards 
are not risk-based, the concentration levels which are LDR treatment 
standards are often below those that would be necessary to protect 
human health and the environment.
    The Agency responded, in an earlier rulemaking, to an earlier, 
similar comment by HRD concerning the effect that delisting stabilized 
wastes might have on the recycling of wastes to recover metals (see 60 
FR 31109, June 13, 1995). EPA's position continues to be that no 
policies are undermined nor regulations violated by the delisting of a 
waste which meets all applicable criteria for delisting. Specifically, 
the existence of an alternate treatment and/or recycling technology is 
not a factor that ``could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste.''
Final Agency Decision
    For the reasons stated in both the proposal and this final rule, 
the Agency believes that UTA's petitioned waste should be excluded from 
hazardous waste control. The Agency, therefore, is granting a final 
exclusion to United Technologies Automotive, Inc., Dearborn, Michigan, 
to exclude (or ``delist''), conditionally, on a one-time, upfront 
basis, its petitioned waste, which consists of the treated waste 
generated by UTA's chemical stabilization treatment of lagoon sludge at 
the Highway 61 Industrial Site in Memphis, Tennessee, and described in 
the petition as F006. This one-time exclusion applies to 20,500 cubic 
yards of waste covered by UTA's delisting petition, and is conditioned 
upon verification testing which demonstrates that the waste meets the 
delisting levels summarized in Table 1 above, and specified in 40 CFR 
Part 261, Appendix IX, Table I, as amended in this final rule.
    Although management of the waste covered by this petition is 
relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction by this final exclusion, the 
generator of the delisted waste must either treat, store, or dispose of 
the waste in an on-site facility, or ensure that the waste is delivered 
to an off-site storage, treatment, or disposal facility, either of 
which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a State to manage 
municipal or industrial solid waste. Alternatively, the delisted waste 
may be delivered to a facility that beneficially uses or reuses, or 
legitimately recycles or reclaims the waste, or treats the waste prior 
to such beneficial use, reuse, recycling, or reclamation (see 40 CFR 
part 260, Appendix I). The petitioned waste in this final rule is also 
subject to a CERCLA Administrative Order, and UTA has stated its 
intention (reference number R4-UTEP-18) to dispose of the delisted 
waste in BFI's Subtitle D Landfill in Shelby County, Tennessee.

III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion

    The final exclusion being granted today is 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 (RCRA) 
and State (non-RCRA) 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 exclusion does not apply in those 
authorized States. If the petitioned waste will be transported to and 
managed in 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 is effective on July 18, 1996. 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 reduces 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

[[Page 37401]]

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 U.S.C. 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 rule is to reduce the overall costs and 
economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. The 
reduction is achieved by excluding waste from EPA's lists of hazardous 
wastes, thereby enabling the facility to treat its waste as non-
hazardous. This rule does not represent 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 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 will not have an adverse economic impact on any small 
entities since its effect will be to reduce the overall costs of EPA's 
hazardous waste regulations and will be limited to one facility. 
Accordingly, I hereby certify that this regulation 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 final 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''), Pub. L. 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 
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, today's delisting decision 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

    Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: June 25, 1996.
James S. Kutzman,
Associate Director, Office of RCRA & Fed. Facilities.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR Part 261 is amended 
as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

    1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.

    2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX to part 261 add the following 
wastestream in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and 
260.22

                               Table 1.--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Facility                                 Address                         Waste description       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                
    *                   *                   *                     *                     *                   *   
                                                             *                                                  
United Technologies Automotive, Inc...  Dearborn, 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 20,500 cubic     
                                                                                 yards of waste that will be    
                                                                                 disposed of in a Subtitle D    
                                                                                 landfill after [insert date of 
                                                                                 final rule.] UTA must          
                                                                                 demonstrate that the following 
                                                                                 conditions are met for the     
                                                                                 exclusion to be valid:         

[[Page 37402]]

                                                                                                                
                                                                                (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 constituents must not    
                                                                                 exceed the following levels    
                                                                                 (ppm): Cadmium--0.48; chromium--
                                                                                 9.6; cyanide--19.2; lead--1.4; 
                                                                                 and nickel--9.6. Metal         
                                                                                 concentrations in the waste    
                                                                                 leachate must be measured by   
                                                                                 the method specified in 40 CFR 
                                                                                 261.24. Total cyanide          
                                                                                 concentration in the leachate  
                                                                                 must be measured by Method 9010
                                                                                 or Method 9012 of SW-846.      
                                                                                (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.   
                                                                                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.                
                                                                                                                
    *                   *                   *                     *                     *                   *   
                                                             *                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 37403]]

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-18044 Filed 7-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P