[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 75 (Friday, April 18, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19087-19095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10110]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW-FRL-5813-2]


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) is proposing to 
grant a petition submitted by General Motors Corporation, Orion 
Assembly Center (GM) in Lake Orion, Michigan, to exclude (or 
``delist'') certain solid wastes generated by its wastewater treatment 
plant from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in subpart D of part 
261. This action responds to a ``delisting'' petition submitted under 
Sec. 260.20, which allows any person to petition the Administrator to 
modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through 266, 268 and 273, 
and under Sec. 260.22, which specifically provides generators the 
opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a 
``generator-specific'' basis from the hazardous waste lists. This 
proposed decision is based on an evaluation of waste-specific 
information provided by the petitioner. If this proposed decision is 
finalized, the petitioned waste will be conditionally excluded from the 
requirements of the hazardous waste regulations under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

DATES: EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision. 
Comments must be received in writing

[[Page 19088]]

by June 2, 1997. 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 Norman R. Niedergang, Director, Waste, Pesticides 
and Toxics Division, at the address listed under ADDRESSES, by May 19, 
1997. The request must contain the information prescribed in 
Sec. 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Two copies of any comments should be sent to Steven Pak, 
Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division, Waste Management Branch (DRP-
8J), U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.
    Requests for a hearing should be addressed to Norman R. Niedergang, 
Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division (D-8J), U.S. EPA Region 
5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.
    The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule which contains 
the complete petition and supporting documents is located at the U.S. 
EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, and is available 
for viewing from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding Federal holidays. Call Steven Pak at (312) 886-4446 for 
appointments. The public may copy material from the regulatory docket 
at $0.15 per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning 
this notice, contact Steven Pak at the address listed under ADDRESSES 
or at (312) 886-4446.

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 typically 
and frequently 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 that wastes 
generated at their facilities do not meet any of the criteria for which 
the wastes were listed. See Sec. 260.22(a)(1) and the background 
documents for the listed wastes. In addition, the Hazardous and Solid 
Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 require EPA to consider any factors 
(including additional constituents) other than those for which the 
waste was listed, if there is a reasonable basis to believe that such 
additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. See 
Sec. 260.22(a)(2). Accordingly, a petitioner also must demonstrate that 
the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics 
(i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity), and must 
present sufficient information for EPA to determine whether the waste 
contains any other constituents at hazardous levels. 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 waste remains non-hazardous based on the hazardous 
waste characteristics.
    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 Sec. 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 EPA 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). EPA 
plans to address issues related to waste mixtures and residues in a 
future rulemaking.

B. Approach Used to Evaluate This Petition

    GM's petition requests a delisting for a listed hazardous waste. In 
making the initial delisting determination, EPA evaluated the 
petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in 
Sec. 261.11(a). Based on this review, EPA tentatively agreed with the 
petitioner, pending public comment, that the waste is non-hazardous 
with respect to the original listing criteria. If EPA 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 
other factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA considered 
whether the waste is acutely toxic, and considered the concentration of 
the constituents in the waste, the toxicity of the constituents, 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, EPA used such information 
gathered to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground water, 
surface water, air) for hazardous constituents present in the 
petitioned waste. EPA determined that disposal in a Subtitle D landfill 
is the most reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for GM's 
petitioned waste, and that the major exposure route of concern would be 
ingestion of contaminated ground water. Therefore, EPA used a fate and 
transport model to predict the maximum concentrations of hazardous 
constituents that may be released from the petitioned waste after 
disposal and to determine the potential impact of the disposal of GM's 
petitioned waste on human health and the environment. Specifically, EPA 
used the maximum estimated waste volume and the maximum reported 
extract concentrations as inputs to estimate the constituent 
concentrations in the ground water at a hypothetical receptor well down 
gradient from the disposal site. The calculated receptor well 
concentrations (referred to as compliance-point concentrations) were 
then compared directly to the health-based levels at an assumed risk of 
10 -6 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 (parts 260 through 266 and 
268). The use of a reasonable worst-case scenario results in 
conservative

[[Page 19089]]

values for the compliance-point concentrations and ensures that the 
waste, once removed from hazardous waste regulation, should not pose a 
threat to human health or the environment.
    EPA also considers the applicability of on-site ground-water 
monitoring data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this 
case, EPA determined that it would be inappropriate to request ground-
water monitoring data because GM currently disposes of the petitioned 
waste off-site. For petitioners using off-site management, EPA believes 
that, in most cases, the ground water monitoring data would not be 
meaningful. Most commercial land disposal facilities accept waste from 
numerous generators. Any ground water contamination or leachate would 
be characteristic of the total volume of waste disposed of at the site. 
In most cases, EPA believes that it would be impossible to isolate 
ground water impacts associated with any one waste disposed of in a 
commercial landfill. Therefore, the EPA did not request ground water 
monitoring data from GM.
    From the evaluation of GM's delisting petition, a list of 
constituents was developed for annual verification testing. Proposed 
maximum allowable leachable concentrations for these constituents were 
derived by back-calculating from the delisting health-based levels 
through the proposed fate and transport model. These concentrations 
(i.e., ``delisting levels'') are part of the verification testing 
conditions of this proposed exclusion.
    Finally, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 
specifically require EPA to provide 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.

II. Disposition of Delisting Petition

    General Motors Corporation, Orion Assembly Center, 4555 Giddings 
Road, Lake Orion, Michigan 48361-1001.

A. Petition for Exclusion

    General Motors Corporation, Orion Assembly Center (GM), located in 
Lake Orion, Michigan, assembles automobiles from parts and materials 
supplied by outside sources. The assembly process includes the chemical 
conversion coating (phosphate coating) of steel, galvanized steel, and 
aluminum automobile body panels. The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) 
filter press sludge generated from this process is presently listed as 
EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019--``Wastewater treatment sludges from the 
chemical conversion coating of aluminum except from zirconium 
phosphating in aluminum can washing when such phosphating is an 
exclusive conversion coating process.'' The listed constituents of 
concern for EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019 are hexavalent chromium and 
cyanide (complexed) (see appendix VII of part 261).
    On January 12, 1996, GM petitioned to exclude its WWTP filter press 
sludge because it believes that the petitioned waste does not meet any 
of the criteria under which the waste was listed and that 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 Sec. 260.22.

B. Background

    On January 12, 1996, GM petitioned EPA to exclude an annual volume 
of 1,500 cubic yards of WWTP filter press sludge from the list of 
hazardous wastes contained in Sec. 261.31, and subsequently provided 
additional information to complete its petition. In support of its 
petition, GM submitted detailed descriptions and schematic diagrams of 
its manufacturing and wastewater treatment processes, and analytical 
testing results for representative samples of the petitioned waste, 
including (1) the hazardous characteristics of ignitability, 
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity; (2) total constituent and 
Extraction Procedure for Oily Wastes (OWEP, SW-846 Method 1330) 
analyses for the eight toxicity characteristic metals listed in 
Sec. 261.24, plus antimony, beryllium, cobalt, copper, hexavalent 
chromium, nickel, tin, thallium, vanadium, and zinc; (3) total 
constituent and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW-
846 Method 1311) analyses for 163 volatile and semi-volatile organic 
compounds; (4) total constituent and TCLP analyses for total sulfide, 
total cyanide, and complexed cyanide; and (5) total constituent 
analysis for oil and grease, total organic carbon, and percent solids.
    GM's automobile assembly process includes the chemical conversion 
coating (phosphate coating) of automobile body panels. Prior to 
phosphate coating, the automobile bodies are cleaned, rinsed, and 
conditioned to promote phosphate crystal refinement. The automobile 
bodies are then dipped in a 76,000 gallon tank containing the phosphate 
coating solution. The phosphate coating provides a micro-crystalline 
corrosion resistant base required for the application of electro-
deposited paint. Following phosphate coating, the automobile bodies are 
rinsed, sprayed with a trivalent chromium sealer to protect and enhance 
the phosphate coating, and rinsed. The application of the chromium 
sealer is a physical process and is not a chemical conversion process. 
After leaving the phosphate process line, the automobile bodies enter 
the electro-deposition process line where the automobile bodies are 
rinsed, dipped in a 68,000 gallon tank where an electro-deposited paint 
film is applied, rinsed, and then baked in an oven at 350 degrees 
Fahrenheit for 35 minutes. The automobile body then goes to the paint 
shop process line where primer paint and basecoats, antichip coats, and 
clearcoats are applied in spraybooths.
    The WWTP treats assembly plant process wastewater and powerhouse 
process wastewater. The assembly plant process wastewater is composed 
primarily of car washing and plant clean-up and maintenance water, and 
wastewater generated by the phosphate and electro-deposition lines. The 
powerhouse wastewater is composed primarily of boiler blowdown and 
cooling water. Under normal operating conditions, paint shop process 
wastewater is not routed to the WWTP.
    Treatment at the WWTP is a batch operation. General wastewater from 
the assembly plant enters one of two solids separators. Each separator 
is equipped with a surface skimmer, dragout system, and oil skimmer for 
removing floating and settleable solids as well as floating oil. The 
wastewater discharges through a bar screen and is mixed with the 
phosphate process line wastewater, electro-deposition process line 
wastewater, and powerhouse wastewater, and is discharged to one of 
three batch process treatment tanks. Reagents such as sodium hydroxide, 
sulfuric acid, and lime, are added and the wastewater is pumped to the 
clarifiers after treatment is complete. Two clarifiers are utilized in 
parallel or series to separate the liquid and solid phases of the 
wastewater. Lime and a secondary flocculent aid are added to improve 
coagulation and flocculation. The settled sludge is pumped to the 
sludge thickener tank and the supernatant is discharged over weirs and 
flows to the pH adjustment sump. The supernatant pH is adjusted with 
sulfuric acid, if necessary, and discharged to the Detroit Water and

[[Page 19090]]

Sewage Department sewer system. In the sludge thickener tank, the 
sludge is thickened with a sludge rake and then pumped to the sludge 
conditioning tank where it is mixed with lime and filter aid. The 
conditioned sludge is then pumped to one of two filter presses. 
Filtrate from the filter presses, as well as supernatant generated in 
the sludge thickener and sludge conditioning tanks, drains to the 
powerhouse sump and is subsequently pumped back to the WWTP for 
treatment. After dewatering, the filter press cake falls into 20 cubic 
yard roll-off boxes beneath the filter presses. Once a roll-off box is 
filled, the waste is disposed of in a land-based management facility as 
a hazardous waste.
    GM submitted a signed certification stating that, based on 
projected annual waste generation, the maximum annual generation rate 
of WWTP filter press sludge will not exceed 1,500 cubic yards per year 
(this corresponds to a mass of approximately 1,500 tons per year based 
on a reported sludge density of 75 pounds per cubic foot). The EPA 
reviews a petitioner's estimates of maximum waste generation and, on 
occasion, has requested a petitioner to re-evaluate the estimated waste 
generation rate. EPA accepts GM's estimate.

C. Waste Analysis

    GM developed a list of analytical constituents based on a review of 
facility processes, Material Safety Data Sheets for raw materials and 
chemical additives used in the manufacturing process, and 
recommendations contained in EPA delisting guidance. See Petitions to 
Delist Hazardous Wastes, A Guidance Manual, dated March 1993.
    For GM's petition, the WWTP filter press sludge was sampled from 
four separate roll-off boxes on February 20, 1995. Each roll-off box 
contained WWTP filter press sludge generated over a period of 
approximately one week and the four boxes were filled on consecutive 
weeks. One composite and one grab sample of sludge was collected from 
each roll-off box. Composite samples consisted of sixteen full-depth 
core grab samples mixed together to form one sample. Composite samples 
were analyzed for semi-volatile organic compounds and inorganic 
constituents. Full-depth core grab samples were analyzed for volatile 
organic compounds (VOCs). Grab samples were collected for VOC analysis 
to eliminate the possibility of VOC loss due to volatilization which 
may occur during preparation of composite samples. Samples were 
collected with a stainless steel hand auger.
    Additional samples were taken in 1996 after a minor change to the 
phosphate coating solution which added magnesium salts. At the request 
of EPA, the results of the analyses were submitted on December 3, 1996.
    To quantify the total constituent and leachate concentrations, GM 
used SW-846 Method 6010 for antimony, barium, beryllium, cadmium, 
chromium, cobalt, copper, nickel, silver, thallium, vanadium, and zinc; 
Method 7060 for arsenic; Method 7421 for lead; Method 7471 for total 
mercury and Method 7470 for leachate mercury; Method 7740 for selenium; 
Method 7870 for tin; Method 7196 for hexavalent chromium; Method 9010 
for cyanide (total and complexed); Method 9030 for sulfide; Method 8240 
for volatile organic compounds; and Method 8270 for semi-volatile 
organic compounds. Along with these methods, GM used the Extraction 
Procedure for Oily Wastes (OWEP, SW-846 Method 1330) and the Toxicity 
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW-846 Method 1311), as 
described below, to determine leachate concentrations.
    Using SW-846 Method 9071, GM determined that the samples of the 
petitioned waste had oil and grease contents ranging from 25,000 mg/kg 
to 41,000 mg/kg. Consistent with EPA delisting guidance, GM used OWEP 
to quantify the leachable levels of metals and TCLP to quantify the 
leachable levels of cyanide, sulfide, volatile organic compounds, and 
semi-volatile organic compounds.
    Characteristic testing of the samples included analysis of reactive 
cyanide (SW-846 Method 7.3.3.2) and reactive sulfide (SW-846 Method 
7.3.4.2), ignitability (SW-846 Method 1010), and corrosivity (SW-846 
9045).
    Table 1 presents the maximum total and leachate concentrations for 
18 metals, total cyanide, complexed cyanide, and total sulfide. Table 1 
also includes maximum total concentrations for reactive cyanide and 
reactive sulfide.
    The detection limits presented in Table 1 represent the lowest 
concentrations quantifiable by GM when using the appropriate SW-846 
methods to analyze its waste. (Detection limits may vary according to 
the waste and waste matrix being analyzed, i.e., the ``cleanliness'' of 
waste matrices varies and ``dirty'' waste matrices may cause 
interferences, thus raising detection limits.)

   Table 1.--Maximum Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations \1\  
                       [WWTP Filter Press Sludge]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Total         OWEP/TCLP  
                                            constituent      leachate   
         Inorganic constituents           analyses  (mg/  analyses  (mg/
                                                kg)             l)      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony................................            5.0          <0.025 
Arsenic.................................            1.1           0.027 
Barium..................................          620             0.14  
Beryllium...............................            0.29         <0.001 
Cadmium.................................            1.9          <0.003 
Chromium (total)........................          580             0.009 
Chromium (hexavalent)...................           <1.1          <0.02  
Cobalt..................................            2.0           0.004 
Copper..................................          550             0.47  
Lead....................................         1300            <0.024 
Mercury.................................            0.54         <0.0002
Nickel..................................         1900            13     
Selenium................................            0.58         <0.002 
Silver..................................           <0.6          <0.003 
Thallium................................           <0.4          <0.01  
Tin.....................................          220            <0.053 
Vanadium................................            1.7           0.004 
Zinc....................................         7400             0.74  

[[Page 19091]]

                                                                        
Cyanide (total).........................            2.2          <0.01  
Cyanide (complexed).....................            2.2          <0.01  
Sulfide (total).........................           18             5.3   
Cyanide (reactive)......................           <0.25         NA     
Sulfide (reactive)......................           <4           NA      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent
  found in any one sample. These levels do not necessarily represent the
  specific levels found in one sample.                                  
< Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the detection limit  
  specified in the table.                                               
NA Denotes that the constituent was not analyzed.                       

    GM analyzed the samples of petitioned waste for 163 volatile and 
semi-volatile organic compounds. Table 2 presents the maximum total and 
leachate concentrations for all detected organic constituents in GM's 
waste samples.

   Table 2.--Maximum Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations \1\  
                       [WWTP Filter Press Sludge]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Total                    
                                            constituent    TCLP leachate
          Organic constituents            analyses  (mg/  analyses  (mg/
                                                kg)             l)      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene.................................           0.01           <0.025
2-Butanone..............................           0.11           <0.05 
Chlorobenzene...........................           0.025          <0.025
Chloroform..............................           0.013          <0.025
1,1-Dichloroethane......................           0.015          <0.025
1,2-Dichloroethane......................           0.024           0.013
Ethylbenzene............................           0.45            0.009
4-Methylphenol..........................        <170               0.063
Naphthalene.............................        <170               0.001
Phenol..................................        <170               0.029
Tetrachloroethene.......................           0.02           <0.025
Toluene.................................           0.39           <0.025
1,1,1-Trichloroethane...................           0.018          <0.025
Xylene..................................           0.63            0.009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent
  found in any one sample. These levels do not necessarily represent the
  specific levels found in one sample.                                  
< Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the detection limit  
  specified in the table.                                               

    Hazardous waste characteristic testing found that reactive cyanide 
and reactive sulfide were not detected in the samples (see Table 1). 
The flash point of the samples was found to be greater than 212 degrees 
Farenheit. The pH of the samples ranged from 8.28 to 9.40.
    EPA does not generally verify submitted test data before proposing 
delisting decisions. The sworn affidavit submitted with the petition 
binds the petitioner to present truthful and accurate results.

D. EPA Evaluation

    EPA has reviewed the sampling procedures used by GM and has 
determined that they satisfy EPA criteria for collecting representative 
samples.
    EPA considered the appropriateness of alternative waste management 
scenarios for GM's WWTP filter press sludge 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 
ground water. EPA, therefore, evaluated GM's petitioned waste using the 
modified EPA Composite Model for Landfills (EPACML) which predicts the 
potential for ground water contamination from wastes that are 
landfilled. See 56 FR 32993 (July 18, 1991) and 56 FR 67197 (December 
30, 1991) for a detailed description of the EPACML model, the disposal 
assumptions, and the modifications made for delisting. This model, 
which includes both unsaturated and saturated zone transport modules, 
was used to predict reasonable worst-case contaminant levels in ground 
water 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 ground-water recharge 
for a specific volume of waste. The DAFs generated using the EPACML 
vary from a maximum of 100 for smaller annual volumes of waste (i.e., 
less than 1,000 cubic yards per year) to DAFs approaching ten for 
larger volume wastes (i.e., 400,000 cubic yards per year).
    Typically, EPA uses the maximum annual waste volume to derive a 
petition-specific DAF. GM's maximum waste volume of 1,500 cubic yards 
per year corresponds to a DAF of 90. EPA's evaluation, using a DAF of 
90 and the maximum reported leachate concentrations (see Tables 1 and 
2), yielded compliance-point concentrations (see Table 3) that are 
below the current health-based levels used in delisting decision-
making.

[[Page 19092]]



      Table 3.--EPACML: Calculated Compliance-Point Concentrations      
                       [WWTP Filter Press Sludge]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Compliance                  
                                               point       Health-based 
   Inorganic and organic constituents     concentrations  levels \1\ (mg/
                                              (mg/l)            l)      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic.................................         0.0003            0.05 
Barium..................................         0.0016            2    
Chromium (total)........................         0.0001            0.1  
Cobalt..................................         0.00004       \3\ 2.1  
Copper..................................         0.0052        \3\ 1.4  
Nickel..................................         0.14     \2\, \3\ 0.7  
Vanadium................................         0.00004           0.2  
Zinc....................................         0.0082           10    
1,2-Dichloroethane......................         0.0001            0.005
Ethylbenzene............................         0.0001            0.7  
4-Methylphenol..........................         0.0007        \3\ 0.18 
Naphthalene.............................         0.00001           1    
Phenol..................................         0.00032          20    
Xylene..................................         0.0001           10    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Docket Report on Health-Based Levels and Solubilities Used in 
  the Evaluation of Delisting Petitions,'' December 1994, located in the
  RCRA public docket for today's notice.                                
\2\ The Maximum Contaminant Level promulgated under the Safe Drinking   
  Water Act was vacated and remanded and subsequently removed from the  
  Code of Federal Regulations on June 29, 1995 (60 FR 33926).           
\3\ Based on the oral reference dose from ``Risk-Based Concentration    
  Table, January-June 1996,'' March 7, 1997, and the equation used for  
  calculating delisting health-based levels found in the document       
  referenced in footnote.                                               
Note: See the RCRA public docket for today's notice for the specific    
  reference doses and the calculation of the health-based levels.       

    For inorganic constituents, the maximum reported leachate 
concentrations of arsenic, barium, chromium (total), cobalt, copper, 
nickel, vanadium, and zinc in the WWTP filter press sludge yielded 
compliance point concentrations well below the health-based levels used 
in delisting decision-making. EPA did not evaluate the mobility of the 
remaining inorganic constituents (i.e., antimony, beryllium, cadmium, 
chromium (hexavalent), lead, mercury, selenium, silver, thallium, tin, 
reactive cyanide, and reactive sulfide) from GM's waste because they 
were not detected in the leachate using the appropriate analytical test 
methods (see Table 1). EPA also evaluated the potential hazards of the 
organic constituents detected in the TCLP extract of GM's samples 
(i.e., 1,2-dichloroethane, ethylbenzene, 4-methylphenol, naphthalene, 
phenol, and xylene). The calculated compliance point concentrations are 
significantly below the respective health-based levels. EPA believes 
that it is inappropriate to evaluate non-detectable concentrations of a 
constituent of concern in its modeling efforts 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), EPA assumes that the 
constituent is not present and therefore does not present a threat to 
human health or the environment.
    After reviewing GM's processes, EPA accepts GM's analysis that no 
other hazardous constituents, other than those tested for, are likely 
to be present in the waste, and that any migration of hazardous 
constituents from the waste would result in concentrations below 
delisting health-based levels of concern. In addition, on the basis of 
test results and information provided by GM pursuant to Sec. 260.22, 
EPA concludes that the petitioned waste does not exhibit any of the 
characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity.
    In its evaluation of GM's petition, EPA also considered the 
potential impact of the petitioned waste via non-ground water routes 
(i.e., air emission and surface runoff). With regard to airborne 
dispersal, EPA believes that no appreciable air releases are likely 
from GM's waste under any likely disposal conditions. Therefore, there 
is no substantial hazard to human health from airborne exposure to 
constituents from GM's petitioned waste.
    EPA also considered the potential impact of the petitioned wastes 
via a surface water route. EPA believes that containment structures at 
municipal solid waste landfills can effectively control surface water 
run-off, as the Subtitle D regulations (see 56 FR 50978, October 9, 
1991) prohibit pollutant discharges into surface waters. Furthermore, 
the concentrations of any hazardous constituents in the run-off will 
tend to be lower than the extraction procedure test results reported in 
today's notice because of the aggressive acidic media used for 
extraction in the TCLP and OWEP. EPA believes that, in general, 
leachate derived from the waste is unlikely to directly enter a surface 
water body without first traveling through the saturated subsurface 
where dilution/attenuation of hazardous constituents will also occur. 
Leachable concentrations provide a direct measure of the solubility of 
a toxic constituent in water, and are indicative of the fraction of the 
constituent that may be mobilized in surface water, as well as ground 
water. The reported TCLP and OWEP data shows that the constituents that 
might be released from GM's waste to surface water would be likely to 
leach in concentrations that would be below the health-based levels of 
concern. EPA, therefore, concludes that GM's waste is not a significant 
hazard to human health or the environment via the surface water 
exposure pathway.

E. Conclusion

    Based on descriptions of the process from which the petitioned 
waste is derived, descriptions of GM's wastewater treatment process, 
and analytical characterization of the petitioned waste, EPA believes 
that GM has successfully demonstrated that the petitioned waste is not 
hazardous. EPA, therefore, proposes to grant an exclusion to GM for its 
WWTP filter press sludge described in its petition as EPA Hazardous 
Waste No. F019. If made final, the proposed exclusion will apply to 
1,500 tons (or 1,500 cubic yards) of petitioned waste generated 
annually, on a calendar year basis. The facility must treat waste 
generated in excess of 1,500 tons (or 1,500 cubic yards) per year as

[[Page 19093]]

hazardous. If either the manufacturing or treatment processes are 
significantly altered such that an adverse change in waste composition 
occurs (e.g., significantly higher levels of hazardous constituents), 
this exclusion would no longer be valid.
    Although management of the waste covered by this petition would be 
removed from Subtitle C jurisdiction upon final promulgation of an 
exclusion, this exclusion applies only where this waste is disposed of 
in a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by 
a State to manage municipal or industrial solid waste.

F. Verification Testing Conditions

    EPA is proposing to require GM to demonstrate on an annual basis 
that the constituents of concern in the petitioned waste do not exceed 
the levels of concern in paragraph 1 below. These levels are based on 
delisting health-based values and a DAF of 90. GM must analyze a 
minimum of four representative samples of the WWTP filter press sludge 
on an annual, calendar-year basis using methods with appropriate 
detection levels and quality control procedures. If the level of any 
constituent measured in any sample of WWTP filter press sludge exceeds 
the levels set forth in paragraph 1 below, then the waste is hazardous 
and must be managed in accordance with Subtitle C of RCRA.
1. Delisting Levels
    Concentrations measured in the TCLP (or OWEP, where appropriate) 
extract of the waste of the following constituents must not exceed the 
following levels (mg/l).
    Arsenic--4.5; Barium--180.; Chromium (total)--9.; Cobalt--189.; 
Copper--126.; Nickel--63.; Vanadium--18.; Zinc--900.; 1,2-
Dichloroethane--0.45; Ethylbenzene--63.; 4-Methylphenol--16.2; 
Naphthalene--90.; Phenol--1800.; Xylene--900. These levels are derived 
by back-calculating from the delisting health-based levels and a DAF of 
90 for all constituents detected in the TCLP and OWEP extract of the 
petitioned waste.
2. Changes in Operating Conditions
    If GM significantly changes the manufacturing or treatment process 
or the chemicals used in the manufacturing or treatment process, GM may 
handle the WWTP filter press sludge generated from the new process 
under this exclusion after the facility has demonstrated that the waste 
meets the levels set in paragraph 1 and that no new hazardous 
constituents listed in appendix VIII of part 261 have been introduced.
3. Data Submittals
    The data obtained through annual verification testing or paragraph 
2 must be submitted to U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, 
IL 60604, within 60 days of sampling. Records of operating conditions 
and analytical data must be compiled, summarized, and maintained on 
site for a minimum of five years and must be made available for 
inspection. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the 
certification statement in Sec. 260.22(i)(12).

III. Effect on State Authorizations

    This proposed exclusion, if promulgated, would be issued under the 
Federal (RCRA) delisting program. States, however, may impose more 
stringent regulatory requirements than EPA, 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 State. 
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 proposed exclusion, if 
promulgated, would not apply in those authorized States. If the 
petitioned waste will be transported to any State with delisting 
authorization, GM must obtain delisting authorization from that State 
before the waste may be managed as nonhazardous in the State.

IV. Effective Date

    This rule, if made final, will become effective immediately upon 
such 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, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

V. Regulatory Impact

    Under Executive Order 12291, EPA must judge whether a regulation is 
``major'' and therefore subject to the requirement of a Regulatory 
Impact Analysis. The proposal to grant an exclusion is not major, since 
its effect, if promulgated, 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 generated at a specific 
facility from EPA's lists of hazardous wastes, thereby enabling this 
facility to manage its waste as non-hazardous. There is no additional 
impact, therefore, due to today's proposed rule. This proposal is not a 
major regulation; therefore, no Regulatory Impact Analysis is required.

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 which 
describes the impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
The Administrator or delegated representative may certify, however, 
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 small entities since its effect would be to reduce the overall costs 
of EPA's hazardous waste regulations. 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.

[[Page 19094]]

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 
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 upon 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: April 1, 1997.
Norman R. Niedergang,
 Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics 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 of part 261 it is proposed to add the 
following waste stream 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              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
General Motors Corporation.........  Lake Orion, Michigan.......  Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludge from 
                                                                   the chemical conversion coating (phosphate   
                                                                   coating) of aluminum (EPA Hazardous Waste No.
                                                                   F019) generated at a maximum annual rate of  
                                                                   1,500 tons per year (or 1,500 cubic yards per
                                                                   year), after (insert publication date of the 
                                                                   final rule), and disposed of in a Subtitle D 
                                                                   landfill.                                    
                                                                  (1) Verification Testing: GM must implement an
                                                                   annual testing program to demonstrate, based 
                                                                   on the analysis of a minimum of four         
                                                                   representative samples, that the constituent 
                                                                   concentrations measured in the TCLP extract  
                                                                   (or OWEP, where appropriate) of the waste do 
                                                                   not exceed the following levels (mg/l).      
                                                                   Arsenic--4.5; Barium--180.; Chromium (total)--
                                                                   9.; Cobalt--189.; Copper--126.; Nickel--63.; 
                                                                   Vanadium--18.; Zinc--900.; 1,2-              
                                                                   Dichloroethane--0.45; Ethylbenzene--63.; 4-  
                                                                   Methylphenol--16.2; Naphthalene--90.; Phenol--
                                                                   1800.; Xylene--900. These levels are derived 
                                                                   by back-calculating from the delisting health-
                                                                   based levels and a DAF of 90 for all         
                                                                   constituents detected in the TCLP and OWEP   
                                                                   extract of the petitioned waste.             
                                                                  (2) Changes in Operating Conditions: If GM    
                                                                   significantly changes the manufacturing or   
                                                                   treatment process or the chemicals used in   
                                                                   the manufacturing or treatment process, GM   
                                                                   may handle the WWTP filter press sludge      
                                                                   generated from the new process under this    
                                                                   exclusion after the facility has demonstrated
                                                                   that the waste meets the levels set forth in 
                                                                   paragraph 1 and that no new hazardous        
                                                                   constituents listed in appendix VIII of part 
                                                                   261 have been introduced.                    
                                                                  (3) Data Submittals: The data obtained through
                                                                   annual verification testing or paragraph 2   
                                                                   must be submitted to U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W.
                                                                   Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, within 60  
                                                                   days of sampling. Records of operating       
                                                                   conditions and analytical data must be       
                                                                   compiled, summarized, and maintained on site 
                                                                   for a minimum of five years and must be made 
                                                                   available for inspection. All data must be   
                                                                   accompanied by a signed copy of the          
                                                                   certification statement in Sec.              
                                                                   260.22(i)(12).                               
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 19095]]

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-10110 Filed 4-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P