[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 13, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55443-55452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26662]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW-FRL-6455-2]


Hazardous Waste Management System; Proposed Exclusion for 
Identifying and Listing Hazardous Waste

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.(EPA)

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ``the Agency'' or ``we'' in this preamble) is 
proposing to grant a petition submitted by General Motors Corporation, 
Lansing Car Assembly--Body Plant (GM) in Lansing, Michigan, to exclude 
(or ``delist'') certain solid wastes generated by its wastewater 
treatment plant (WWTP) from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 
Subpart D of Part 261.
    GM submitted the petition under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22(a). 
Section 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to 
modify or revoke any provision of Secs. 260 through 266, 268 and 273. 
Section 260.22 (a) specifically provides generators the opportunity to 
petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator 
specific'' basis from the hazardous waste lists.
    The Agency has tentatively decided to grant the petition based on 
an evaluation of waste-specific information provided by GM. This 
proposed decision, if finalized, conditionally excludes the petitioned 
waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
    We conclude that GM's petitioned waste is nonhazardous with respect 
to the original listing criteria.

DATES: We will accept public comments on this proposed decision until 
November 29, 1999. We will stamp comments postmarked after the close of 
the comment period as ``late.'' These ``late'' comments may not be 
considered in formulating a final decision.
    Your request for a hearing must reach EPA by October 28, 1999. The 
request must contain the information prescribed in Sec. 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Please send two copies of your comments to Peter 
Ramanauskas, Waste Management Branch (DW-8J), Environmental Protection 
Agency, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL, 60604.
    Any person may request a hearing on this proposed decision by 
filing a request with Robert Springer, Director, Waste, Pesticides and 
Toxics Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., 
Chicago, IL, 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Contact: For technical information concerning 
this notice, contact Peter Ramanauskas at the address above or at 312-
886-7890. The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule is located 
at the U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, and 
is available for viewing from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding federal holidays. Call Peter Ramanauskas at (312) 
886-7890 for appointments. The public may copy material from the 
regulatory docket at $0.15 per page.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized 
as follows:

I. Overview Information
    A. What action is EPA proposing?
    B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this delisting?
    C. How will GM manage the waste if it is delisted?
    D. When would EPA finalize the proposed delisting exclusion?
    E. How would this action affect States?
II. Background
    A. What is the history of the delisting program?
    B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a 
petitioner?
    C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a 
delisting petition?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
    A. What waste did GM petition EPA to delist?
    B. What information and analyses did GM submit to support this 
petition?
    C. How does GM generate the petitioned waste?
    D. How did GM sample and analyze the data in this petition?
    E. What were the results of GM's analysis?
    F. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
    G. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
    H. What did EPA conclude about GM's analysis?
    I. What is EPA's final evaluation of this delisting petition?
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
    A. What are the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous 
constituents in the waste?
    B. How frequently must GM test the waste?
    C. What must GM do if the process changes?
    D. What data must GM submit?
    E. What happens if GM's waste fails to meet the conditions of 
the exclusion?
V. Regulatory Impact
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
IX. Executive Order 12875
X. Executive Order 13045
XI. Executive Order 13084
XII. National Technology Transfer And Advancement Act

I. Overview Information

A. What Action Is EPA Proposing?

    The EPA is proposing to grant GM's petition to have its wastewater 
treatment sludge excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a 
hazardous waste. We used a fate and transport model to predict the 
concentration of hazardous constituents released from the petitioned 
waste once it is disposed to evaluate the potential impact of the 
petitioned waste on human health and the environment.

B. Why is EPA Proposing to Approve This Delisting?

    GM petitioned EPA to exclude, or delist, the wastewater treatment 
sludge because GM believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the 
RCRA criteria for which EPA listed it. GM also believes there are no 
additional constituents or factors which could cause the wastes to be 
hazardous.
    Based on our review described below, we agree with the petitioner 
that the waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original listing 
criteria. If our review had found that the waste remained hazardous 
based on the factors for which we originally listed the waste, we would 
have proposed to deny the petition.
    In reviewing this petition, we considered the original listing 
criteria and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid 
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See Sec. 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 
6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)-(4). We evaluated the petitioned waste 
against the listing criteria and factors cited in Secs. 261.11(a)(2) 
and (3).
    We also evaluated the waste for other factors or criteria which 
could cause the waste to be hazardous. These factors included: (1) 
Whether the waste is considered acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity

[[Page 55444]]

of the constituents; (3) the concentration of the constituents in the 
waste; (4) the tendency of the hazardous constituents to migrate and to 
bioaccumulate; (5) its persistence in the environment once released 
from the waste; (6) plausible and specific types of management of the 
petitioned waste; (7) the quantity of waste produced; and (8) waste 
variability.
    We believe that the petitioned waste does not meet the criteria for 
which the waste was listed, and therefore, should be delisted. Our 
tentative decision to delist waste from GM's Lansing facility is based 
on the description of the process which generates the waste and the 
analytical data submitted to support today's proposed rule.

C. How Will GM Manage the Waste If It Is Delisted?

    If the petitioned waste is delisted, GM must dispose of it in a 
Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a 
state to manage industrial waste.

D. When Would EPA Finalize the Proposed Delisting Exclusion?

    HSWA specifically requires the EPA to provide notice and an 
opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final exclusion. 
Thus, EPA will not make a final decision or grant an exclusion until it 
has addressed all timely public comments (including those at public 
hearings, if any) on today's proposal.
    This rule, if finalized, will become effective upon demonstration 
that the waste is in full compliance with land disposal restrictions. 
Since this rule would reduce the existing requirements for persons 
generating hazardous wastes, the regulated community does not need a 
six-month period to come into compliance in accordance with Section 
3010 of RCRA as amended by HSWA.

E. How Would This Action Affect the States?

    Because EPA is issuing today's exclusion under the federal RCRA 
delisting program, only states subject to federal RCRA delisting 
provisions would be affected. This exclusion may not be effective in 
states having a dual system that includes federal RCRA requirements and 
their own requirements, or in states which have received our 
authorization to make their own delisting decisions.
    EPA allows states to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory 
requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of 
RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that 
prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the state. 
Because a dual system (that is, both federal (RCRA) and state (non-
RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's waste, we urge petitioners 
to contact the state regulatory authority to establish the status of 
their wastes under the state law.
    EPA has also authorized some states to administer a delisting 
program in place of the federal program, that is, to make state 
delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those 
authorized states. If GM transports the petitioned waste to or manages 
the waste in any state with delisting authorization, GM must obtain 
delisting authorization from that state before it can manage the waste 
as nonhazardous in the state.

II. Background

A. What Is the History of the Delisting Program?

    The EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from 
nonspecific and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its 
final and interim final regulations implementing Section 3001 of RCRA. 
The EPA has amended this list several times and published it in 40 CFR 
261.31 and Sec. 261.32.
    We list these wastes as hazardous because: (1) They typically and 
frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous 
wastes identified in Subpart C of Part 261 (that is, ignitability, 
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or (2) they meet the criteria 
for listing contained in Secs. 261.11(a)(2) or (3).
    Individual waste streams may vary depending on raw materials, 
industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste described 
in these regulations generally is hazardous, a specific waste from an 
individual facility meeting the listing description may not be.
    For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion 
procedure, called delisting, which allows persons to demonstrate that 
EPA should not regulate a specific waste from a particular generating 
facility as a hazardous waste.

B. What Is a Delisting Petition, and What Does It Require of a 
Petitioner?

    A delisting petition is a request from a facility to EPA or an 
authorized state to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes. 
The facility petitions the Agency because it does not consider the 
wastes hazardous under RCRA regulations.
    In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that wastes 
generated at a particular facility do not meet any of the criteria for 
listed wastes. The criteria for which EPA lists a waste are in 40 CFR 
261.11 and in the background documents for the listed wastes.
    In addition, a petitioner must demonstrate that the waste does not 
exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (that is, 
ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and must present 
sufficient information for us to decide whether factors other than 
those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a 
hazardous waste. (See Sec. 260.22, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f) and the background 
documents for the listed wastes.)
    Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm that their waste 
remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics even 
if EPA has ``delisted'' the wastes.

C. What Factors Must EPA Consider in Deciding Whether To Grant a 
Delisting Petition?

    Besides considering the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a), 42 U.S.C. 
6921(f), and in the background documents for the listed wastes, EPA 
must consider any factors (including additional constituents) other 
than those for which we listed the waste if these additional factors 
could cause the waste to be hazardous. (See The Hazardous and Solid 
Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984.)
    EPA must also consider as hazardous wastes mixtures containing 
listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or 
disposing of listed hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and 
(c)(2)(i), called the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules, 
respectively. These wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain 
hazardous wastes until excluded.
    The ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules are now final, after 
having been vacated, remanded, and reinstated.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data

A. What Wastes Did GM Petition EPA To Delist?

    In November 1998, GM petitioned EPA to exclude an annual volume of 
1,250 cubic yards of F019 WWTP filter press sludge generated at its 
Lansing Car Assembly--Body Plant located in Lansing, Michigan from the 
list of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31. The EPA reviews a 
petitioner's estimates and, on occasion, has requested a petitioner to 
re-evaluate the estimated waste generation rate. EPA accepts GM's 
estimate. F019 is defined as ``Wastewater treatment sludges from the 
chemical conversion coating of

[[Page 55445]]

aluminum except from zirconium phosphating in aluminum can washing when 
such phosphating is an exclusive conversion coating process.'' GM 
believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the criteria for which 
F019 was listed (i.e., hexavalent chromium and complexed cyanide).

B. What Information and Analyses Did GM Submit To Support This 
Petition?

    To support its petition, GM submitted (1) descriptions and 
schematic diagrams of its manufacturing and wastewater treatment 
processes; (2) results of analyses for the characteristics of 
ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity; (3) total constituent 
analyses and Extraction Procedure for Oily Wastes (OWEP, SW-846 Method 
1330A) analyses for the eight toxicity characteristic metals listed in 
40 CFR 261.24, plus antimony, beryllium, cobalt, copper, hexavalent 
chromium, nickel, tin, thallium, vanadium, and zinc; (4) total 
constituent and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), SW-
846 Method 1311 analyses for 56 volatile and 117 semi-volatile organic 
compounds and formaldehyde; (5) total constituent and TCLP analyses for 
sulfide, cyanide, and fluoride; (6) total constituent and TCLP analyses 
for organochlorine pesticides and chlorinated herbicides; and (7) 
analysis for oil and grease, and percent solids.

C. How Does GM Generate the Petitioned Waste?

    GM's automobile assembly process includes the treatment of 
automobile bodies by alkaline cleaning and phosphating in preparation 
for a cathodic electrodeposited paint film (i.e., electrocoat). Prior 
to phosphate coating, GM cleans, rinses, and conditions the automobile 
bodies to promote phosphate crystal refinement. The automobile bodies 
then pass through a 5,050 gallon zinc-nickel phosphate spray tank where 
the phosphate coating solution is applied. 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 and rinsed again. The wastewater from the rinse spray overflows 
to the general wastewater stream. 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 325 degrees Fahrenheit for 20 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 the assembly plant's general industrial waste 
stream, electro-deposition process line waste stream, and deionized 
water system waste stream. The general industrial waste stream is 
composed primarily of car washing and plant clean-up and maintenance 
water, wastewater generated by the phosphate process line, spraybooth 
recirculation system blowdown, welding wastewater, non-contact cooling 
water blowdown, boiler blowdown, and boiler condensate. The electro-
deposition waste stream is composed of a deionized water rinse overflow 
stream and the deionized water system waste stream is composed of 
deionized water system regenerate and deionized water reject.
    Treatment at the WWTP is a batch operation. General wastewater from 
the assembly plant enters one of two solids separators. Each separator 
has a surface skimmer for removing floating and settleable solids. The 
wastewater discharges to one of three process wastewater holding tanks 
where the general industrial waste stream blends with the electro-
deposition and deionized water waste streams. Sulfuric acid may be 
added to the holding tanks as necessary to break metal chelates. A 
cationic polymer coagulant is added to the wastewater as it is pumped 
from the holding tanks to a blend basin. Caustic is added to the 
wastewater within the blend basin to raise wastewater pH to 9.5-9.8. 
From the blend basin, wastewater discharges to a flash mix tank where 
an anionic polymer is added to floc the suspended solids. Two 
clarifiers in parallel separate the liquid and solid phases of the 
wastewater. The settled sludge is pumped to either a sludge thickener 
or a sludge conditioning tank and the supernatant passes through one of 
two rapid sand filters operating in parallel and before discharging to 
the Lansing Publicly Owned Treatment Works sewer system. In the sludge 
thickener tank, the sludge is thickened with a sludge rake and then 
pumped to the sludge conditioning tank. 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, is returned 
to the WWTP influent wet well. After dewatering, the filter press cake 
falls into 23 cubic yard roll-off boxes beneath the filter presses. 
Once a roll-off box is filled, GM disposes of the waste in a land-based 
management facility as a hazardous waste.

D. How Did GM Sample and Analyze the Data in This Petition?

    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 1996.
    For GM's petition, GM sampled the WWTP filter press sludge from 
four separate roll-off boxes on December 19, 1997 and January 29, 1998. 
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. GM collected one composite and one grab sample of 
sludge from each roll-off box during each sampling event. Composite 
samples consisted of four individual full-depth core grab samples mixed 
together to form one sample. GM analyzed composite samples for semi-
volatile organic compounds, organochlorine pesticides, chlorinated 
herbicides, and inorganic constituents and analyzed full-depth core 
grab samples for volatile organic compounds (VOC). 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.
    To quantify the total constituent and leachate concentrations, GM 
used the following SW-846 Methods: 6020 for antimony, arsenic, barium, 
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, 
silver, thallium, tin, vanadium, and zinc; 7471A for total mercury; 
7470A for leachate mercury; 7196A for hexavalent chromium; 9013 for 
total cyanide; 9012 for amenable cyanide; 9030A for sulfide; 8260A for 
volatile organic compounds; 8270B for semi-volatile organic compounds; 
8081 for organochlorine pesticides; and 8151 for chlorinated 
herbicides. GM used the following SW-846 Methods for characteristic 
testing of the samples: 7.3.3.2 for reactive cyanide; 7.3.4.2 for 
reactive sulfide; 1010 for ignitability; and 9045C for corrosivity. GM 
used method 9071 to determine oil and grease content. Based on results 
of 149,000 mg/kg to 193,000 mg/kg, GM used the Extraction Procedure for 
Oily Wastes (OWEP, SW-846 Method 1330A) and the Toxicity Characteristic 
Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW-846 Method 1311), as described below, to 
determine leachate concentrations. GM used EPA

[[Page 55446]]

Methods 9056 & 340.2 to detect fluoride, Association of Official 
Analytical Chemists (AOAC) Method 931.08 to detect formaldehyde, and 
EPA Method 160.3 to determine percent solids.

E. What Were the Results of GM's Analysis?

    Table 1 presents the maximum total and leachate concentrations for 
18 metals, total cyanide, total sulfide, reactive sulfide, and 
fluoride. Reactive cyanide was not detected in any of the samples.

   Table 1.--Maximum Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations \1\
                           [WWTP Filter Cake]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Total  constituent      TCLP  leachate
   Inorganic constituents       analyses  (mg/kg)      analyses (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony....................               7.4                   0.053
Arsenic.....................               7.2                   0.048
Barium......................             727.0                   0.239
Beryllium...................               1.1                   0.013
Cadmium.....................               1.2                   0.009
Chromium (total)............            1820.0                   0.164
Chromium (hexavalent).......               0.158                 0.003
Cobalt......................              12.8                   0.038
Copper......................             523.0                   0.242
Lead........................           10800.0                   0.794
Mercury.....................               0.15                  0.0075
Nickel......................            3240.0                  17.823
Selenium....................               4.6                   0.044
Tin.........................            2310.0                  35.441
Vanadium....................              43.9                   0.348
Zinc........................           17400.0                   3.941
Cyanide (total).............               2.34                  0.0122
Sulfide (total).............            1780.0                   1.53
Fluoride....................             403.0                   0.898
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.

    GM analyzed the samples of petitioned waste for 173 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 Cake]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Total  constituent    TCLP  leachate
      Organic constituents        analyses  (Mg/kg)    analyses  (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone........................  <11.4 UJ             0.170
Allyl Chloride.................  0.067                ND
Beta-BHC.......................  <0.88 U              0.00005
2-Butanone.....................  0.618                ND
m,p-Cresol.....................  <587 U               0.0223
Chloroform.....................  0.013                ND
DDT............................  <1.76 U              0.000045
1,1-Dichloroethane.............  <0.08 U              0.0087
Ethylbenzene...................  0.457                0.0044
Formaldehyde...................  1520.0               0.508
Methylene Chloride.............  1.680                ND
Oil & Grease...................  193,000              NA
Phenol.........................  <587 U               0.339
Toluene........................  0.19                 0.0031
1,1,1-Trichloroethane..........  <0.08 UJ             0.0494
Trichloroethene................  0.0436               ND
Xylenes, Total.................  6.58                 0.0399
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
 UJ, U--Constituent not detected above quantitation limit.
 ND--Denotes that the constituent was not detected.
NA--Not Applicable.


[[Page 55447]]

    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. GM 
submitted a signed Certification of Accuracy and Responsibility 
statement presented in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).

F. How Did EPA Evaluate the Risk of Delisting this Waste?

    For this delisting determination, we used information gathered to 
identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground water, surface water, 
air) for hazardous constituents present in the petitioned waste. We 
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. We, therefore, evaluated GM's petitioned 
waste using the modified EPA Composite Model for Landfills (EPACML) 
which predicts the potential for ground water contamination from 
landfilled wastes. See 56 FR 32993 (July 18, 1991), 56 FR 67197 
(December 30, 1991). We believe this model is appropriate when 
evaluating whether a waste should be delisted from RCRA Subtitle C 
(Parts 260 through 266 and 268).
    Specifically, we 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 concentration was then compared directly to the health-
based level at an assumed risk of 1  x  10-6 for each 
hazardous constituent of concern. For the petitioned waste, none of the 
calculated values at the receptor well exceeded the health based level 
(HBL) at the target risk level of 1  x  10-6. The HBL was 
then used to back calculate the maximum allowable concentration in the 
waste extract which would not exceed protective levels at the receptor 
well for each constituent of concern.
    We used GM's maximum annual waste volume to derive a petition-
specific dilution-attenuation factor (DAF) of 96. In our evaluation, we 
used a DAF of 96 times the health based level to determine the maximum 
allowable leachate concentration for GM's waste (see Table 3).

                           Table 3.--EPACML: Maximum Allowable Leachate Concentrations
                                               [WWTP Filter Cake]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   TCLP  leachate analyses  Levels of regulatory
               Inorganic and Organic Constituents                          (mg/l)             concern \1\(mg/l)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony........................................................               0.053                     0.576
Arsenic.........................................................               0.048                     4.8
Barium..........................................................               0.239                   100.0
Beryllium.......................................................               0.013                     0.384
Cadmium.........................................................               0.009                     0.48
Chromium........................................................               0.164                     5.0
Cobalt..........................................................               0.038                   201.6
Copper..........................................................               0.242                   124.8
Lead............................................................               0.794                     1.44
Mercury.........................................................               0.0075                    0.192
Nickel..........................................................              17.823                    67.2
Selenium........................................................               0.044                     1.0
Silver..........................................................               0.028                     5.0
Thallium........................................................               0.020                     0.192
Tin.............................................................              35.441                  2016.0
Vanadium........................................................               0.348                    28.8
Zinc............................................................               3.941                   960.0
Cyanide (total).................................................               0.0122                   19.2
Fluoride........................................................               0.898                   384.0
Acetone.........................................................               0.170                   336.0
Beta-BHC........................................................               0.00005                   0.00454
m,p-Cresol......................................................               0.0223                   19.2
DDT.............................................................               0.000045                  0.024
1,1-Dichloroethane..............................................               0.0087                    0.0864
Ethylbenzene....................................................               0.0044                   67.2
Formaldehyde....................................................               0.508                   672.0
Phenol..........................................................               0.3390                 1920.0
Toluene.........................................................               0.0031                   96.0
1,1,1-Trichloroethane...........................................               0.0494                   19.2
Xylenes.........................................................               0.0399                  960.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Docket Report on Health-Based Levels and Solubilities Used in the Evaluation of Delisting Petitions,''
  May 1996, located in the RCRA public docket for today's notice.
Note: See the RCRA public docket for today's notice for the specific reference doses and the calculation of the
  health-based levels of regulatory concern.

    For inorganic constituents, the maximum reported leachate 
concentrations for metals, cyanide, and fluoride in the WWTP filter 
press sludge were well below the health-based levels of concern used in 
decision-making for delisting. We also evaluated the potential hazards 
of the organic constituents detected in the TCLP extract of GM's 
samples. The maximum detected leachate concentrations were 
significantly below the respective levels of concern. We believe that 
it is inappropriate to evaluate non-detectable concentrations of a 
constituent of concern in our modeling efforts if the non-detectable 
value was obtained using the appropriate analytical method.

[[Page 55448]]

G. What Other Factors Did EPA Consider in Its Evaluation?

    We also considered the applicability of ground-water monitoring 
data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this case, we 
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, we did not request ground water 
monitoring data from GM.
    During the evaluation of GM's petition, we also considered the 
potential impact of the petitioned waste via air emission and storm 
water run-off.
    We evaluated the exposure to waste particles and volatile emissions 
released from the surface of an open landfill. We considered exposure 
to hazardous constituents through (1) inhalation of particulates and 
absorption into the lungs; (2) ingestion of particulates eliminated 
from respiratory passages and subsequently swallowed; (3) inhalation of 
gas from the release of volatile compounds; and (4) air deposition of 
particulates and subsequent ingestion of the soil/waste mixture.
    The estimated levels of the hazardous constituents of concern 
released into the air are below health-based levels for ingestion and 
inhalation levels of concern, and the EPA Concentration-Based Exemption 
Criteria for Soils (57 FR 21450, May 20, 1992), with the singular 
exception of formaldehyde. The concentration of formaldehyde in all 
waste samples exceeded a 1 x 10-6 cancer risk level for 
inhalation with the maximum value estimated at 3.58 x 10-6.
    Formaldehyde is present in resins used in the automotive painting 
process. The maximum formaldehyde levels in the waste are deemed 
acceptable for the following reasons: (1) Formaldehyde is not a 
constituent for which this waste was listed; (2) the estimated cancer 
risk from the maximum formaldehyde level was still within the 
10-4 to 10-6 range; (3) the volatile emissions 
model may have been overly conservative by ignoring competing fate and 
transport phenomenon; and (4) formaldehyde was the only constituent 
exceeding target risk levels. Although the waste as tested is deemed 
acceptable, we are imposing a limit on the maximum allowable 
concentration of formaldehyde to ensure that risks posed by the waste 
do not increase. A delisting limit of 2100 mg/kg total formaldehyde 
corresponds with a cancer risk of 5 x 10-6 at the receptor, 
based on the modeling in this evaluation. This concentration is well 
above the average and maximum values observed in the current samples 
evaluated (921 and 1520 mg/kg, respectively).
    We believe that exposure to airborne contaminants from GM's 
petitioned wastes is unlikely. The results of this worse-case analysis 
suggested no substantial hazard to human health from airborne exposure 
to constituents in GM's wastewater treatment sludge.
    For a description of EPA's assessment of the potential impact of 
airborne dispersion from GM's waste, see the RCRA public docket for 
today's proposed rule.
    We evaluated the potential hazards resulting from exposure to 
hazardous constituents released into surface water as a result of land 
disposal of the wastewater treatment sludge. We investigated the 
potential hazard from exposure of ecological receptors to dissolved 
hazardous constituents in a small stream considered large enough to 
support a fishery. We also evaluated the potential hazard from human 
consumption of aquatic organisms from the stream. A larger stream was 
evaluated based on the same criteria and the potential hazards from 
ingestion of contaminated drinking water. The larger stream size was 
deemed large enough to support a public water supply. We assumed an 
amount of uncovered waste would be exposed to soil erosion losses 
through run-off. We modeled soil containing waste particles to flow 
into a nearby stream followed by complete dissolution of hazardous 
constituents into the water column. No resultant concentrations of 
hazardous constituents in the surface water exceeded water quality 
criteria for ecological or human exposures.
    Based on this worst case evaluation, we conclude that GM's 
wastewater treatment sludge is not a substantial or potential hazard to 
human health and the environment via surface water exposure.
    For a description of EPA's assessment of the potential impact of 
runoff from GM's waste, see the RCRA public docket for today's proposed 
rule.

H. What Did EPA Conclude About GM's Analysis?

    After reviewing GM's processes, the EPA concludes that (1) no 
hazardous constituents of concern are likely to be present in GM's 
waste; and (2) the petitioned waste does not exhibit any of the 
characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. See 40 CFR 
261.21, 261.22, and 261.23, respectively.

I. What Is EPA's Final Evaluation of This Delisting Petition?

    The descriptions of the GM hazardous waste process and analytical 
characterization, with the proposed verification testing requirements 
(as discussed later in this notice), provide a reasonable basis for EPA 
to grant the exclusion.
    We have reviewed the sampling procedures used by GM and have 
determined they satisfy EPA criteria for collecting representative 
samples of constituent concentrations in the wastewater treatment 
sludge.
    We believe the data submitted in support of the petition show that 
GM's waste will not pose a threat when disposed of in a Subtitle D 
landfill. We therefore, propose to grant GM an exclusion for its WWTP 
sludge.
    If we finalize the proposed rule, the Agency will no longer 
regulate the petitioned waste under 40 CFR Parts 262 through 268 and 
the permitting standards of Part 270.

IV. Conditions for Exclusion

A. What Are the Maximum Allowable Concentrations of Hazardous 
Constituents in the Waste?

    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): Antimony--0.576; Arsenic--4.8; Barium--100; 
Beryllium--0.384; Cadmium--0.48; Chromium--5; Cobalt--201.6; Copper--
124.8; Lead--1.44; Mercury--0.192; Nickel--67.2; Selenium--1; Silver--
5; Thallium--0.192; Tin--2016; Vanadium--28.8; Zinc--960; Cyanide--
19.2; Fluoride--384; Acetone--336; m,p,-Cresol--19.2; 1,1-
Dichloroethane--0.0864; Ethylbenzene--67.2; Formaldehyde--672; Phenol--
1920; Toluene--96; 1,1,1-Trichloroethane--19.2; Xylene--960; Beta-BHC--
0.00454; DDT--0.024.
    GM may not dispose of the excluded waste in a Subtitle D landfill 
until it has demonstrated compliance with land disposal restrictions of 
11.0 mg/l for nickel and 0.75 mg/l for lead as measured in a TCLP 
extract.

[[Page 55449]]

    The total concentration of formaldehyde in the waste must not 
exceed 2100 mg/kg.
    Analysis for determining reactivity must be added to the required 
verification testing when an EPA-approved method becomes available.

B. How Frequently Must GM Test the Waste?

    GM must demonstrate on an annual basis that the constituents of 
concern in the petitioned waste do not exceed the levels of concern in 
Section IV.A above. In addition, GM must demonstrate compliance with 
land disposal restrictions for Nickel and Lead on a monthly basis. GM 
must analyze four representative samples of the WWTP filter press 
sludge using methods with appropriate detection levels and quality 
control procedures.

C. What Must GM Do If the Process Changes?

    If GM significantly changes the manufacturing or treatment process 
or the chemicals used in the manufacturing or treatment process, GM may 
not handle the WWTP filter press sludge generated from the new process 
under this exclusion until it has demonstrated to the EPA that the 
waste meets the levels set in Section IV.A and that no new hazardous 
constituents listed in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR Part 261 have been 
introduced. GM must manage wastes generated after the process change as 
hazardous waste until GM has received written approval from EPA.

D. What Data Must GM Submit?

    GM must submit the data obtained through annual verification 
testing to U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, 
within 60 days of sampling. GM must compile, summarize, and maintain on 
site for a minimum of five years records of operating conditions and 
analytical data. GM must make these records available for inspection. 
All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the certification 
statement in 40 CFR 260.22(I)(12).

E. What Happens If GM Fails To Meet the Conditions of the Exclusion?

    If GM violates the terms and conditions established in the 
exclusion, the Agency may start procedures to withdraw the exclusion.
    If the annual testing of the waste does not meet the delisting 
levels described in Section IV.A above, GM must notify the Agency 
according to Section IV.D. The exclusion will be suspended and the 
waste managed as hazardous until GM has received written approval for 
the exclusion from the Agency. GM may provide sampling results which 
support the continuation of the delisting exclusion.
    The EPA has the authority under RCRA and the Administrative 
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 551 (1978) et seq. (APA), to reopen a 
delisting decision if we receive new information indicating that the 
conditions of this exclusion have been violated.

V. Regulatory Impact

    Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of 
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory 
actions.
    The proposal to grant an exclusion is not significant, 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, thus enabling a facility 
to manage its waste as nonhazardous.
    Because there is no additional impact from today's proposed rule, 
this proposal would not be a significant regulation, and no cost/
benefit assessment is required. 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

    Under 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 (that is, 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 any 
impact on 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 and would be limited to one 
facility. Accordingly, the Agency certifies 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 (Public Law 96-511, 44 USC 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned 
OMB Control Number 2050-0053.

VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995, 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement for rules with federal 
mandates that may result in estimated costs to state, local, and tribal 
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million 
or more in any one year.
    When such a statement is required for EPA rules, under section 205 
of the UMRA EPA must identify and consider alternatives, including the 
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. EPA must select that alternative, 
unless the Administrator explains in the final rule why it was not 
selected or it is inconsistent with law.
    Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, EPA 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.
    The 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, the proposed 
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.

IX. Executive Order 12875

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a

[[Page 55450]]

mandate upon a state, local, or tribal government, unless the federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by those governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA 
must provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of 
the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected 
state, local, and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, 
copies of written communications from the governments, and a statement 
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive 
Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting 
elected officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.'' 
Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive 
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

X. Executive Order 13045

    The Executive Order 13045 is entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997). This order applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) is 
economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and 
(2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This 
proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this is 
not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by 
Executive Order 12866.

XI. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects 
that communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the 
federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments.
    If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office 
Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the 
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation.
    In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected and other representatives of 
Indian tribal governments ``to meaningful and timely input'' in the 
development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or 
uniquely affect their communities of Indian tribal governments. This 
action does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian 
Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive 
Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

XII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under Section 12(d) if the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act, the Agency is directed to use voluntary consensus 
standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
    Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (for example, 
materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business 
practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standard bodies. Where EPA does not use available and potentially 
applicable voluntary consensus standards, the Act requires that Agency 
to provide Congress, through the OMB, an explanation of the reasons for 
not using such standards.
    This rule does not establish any new technical standards, and thus 
the Agency has no need to consider the use of voluntary consensus 
standards in developing this final rule.

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: September 21, 1999.
Robert Springer,
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...........  Lansing, 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
                                                                 1,250 cubic yards per year and disposed of in a
                                                                 Subtitle D landfill, after (insert publication
                                                                 date of the final rule).

[[Page 55451]]

 
                                                                1. Delisting Levels: (A) The constituent
                                                                 concentrations measured in the TCLP extract may
                                                                 not exceed the following levels (mg/L):
                                                                 Antimony--0.576; Arsenic--4.8; Barium--100;
                                                                 Beryllium--0.384; Cadmium--0.48; Chromium
                                                                 (total)-5; Cobalt--201.6; Copper--124.8; Lead--
                                                                 1.44; Mercury--0.192; Nickel--67.2; Selenium--
                                                                 1; Silver--5; Thallium--0.192; Tin--2016;
                                                                 Vanadium--28.8; Zinc--960; Cyanide--19.2;
                                                                 Fluoride--384; Acetone--336; m,p-Cresol--19.2;
                                                                 1,1--Dichloroethane--0.0864; Ethylbenzene--
                                                                 67.2; Formaldehyde--672; Phenol--1920; Toluene--
                                                                 96; 1,1,1--Trichloroethane--19.2; Xylene--960;
                                                                 Beta-BHC--0.00454; DDT--0.024.
                                                                (B) The total concentration of formaldehyde in
                                                                 the waste may not exceed 2100 mg/kg.
                                                                (C) Analysis for determining reactivity must be
                                                                 added to verification testing when an EPA-
                                                                 approved method becomes available.
                                                                2. Verification Testing: GM must implement an
                                                                 annual testing program to demonstrate that the
                                                                 constituent concentrations measured in the TCLP
                                                                 extract (or OWEP, where appropriate) of the
                                                                 waste do not exceed the delisting levels
                                                                 established in Condition (1). GM must also
                                                                 demonstrate compliance with LDR treatment
                                                                 standards for Nickel and Lead on a monthly
                                                                 basis.
                                                                3. Changes in Operating Conditions: If GM
                                                                 significantly changes the manufacturing or
                                                                 treatment process or the chemicals used in the
                                                                 manufacturing or treatment process, GM must
                                                                 notify the EPA of the changes in writing. GM
                                                                 must handle wastes generated after the process
                                                                 change as hazardous until GM has demonstrated
                                                                 that the wastes meet the delisting levels set
                                                                 forth in Condition 1 and that no new hazardous
                                                                 constituents listed in Appendix VIII of Part
                                                                 261 have been introduced and GM has received
                                                                 written approval from EPA.
                                                                4. Data Submittals: GM must submit the data
                                                                 obtained through annual verification testing or
                                                                 as required by other conditions of this rule to
                                                                 U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd. (DW-8J),
                                                                 Chicago, IL 60604, within 60 days of sampling.
                                                                 GM must compile, summarize, and maintain on
                                                                 site for a minimum of five years records of
                                                                 operating conditions and analytical data. GM
                                                                 must make these records available for
                                                                 inspection. All data must be accompanied by a
                                                                 signed copy of the certification statement in
                                                                 40 CFR 260.22(I)(12).
                                                                5. Reopener Language--(a) If, anytime after
                                                                 disposal of the delisted waste, GM possesses or
                                                                 is otherwise made aware of any environmental
                                                                 data (including but not limited to leachate
                                                                 data or groundwater monitoring data) or any
                                                                 other data relevant to the delisted waste
                                                                 indicating that any constituent identified in
                                                                 Condition (1) is at a level in the leachate
                                                                 higher than the delisting level established in
                                                                 Condition (1), or is at a level in the ground
                                                                 water or soil higher than the level predicted
                                                                 by the CML model, then GM must report such
                                                                 data, in writing, to the Regional Administrator
                                                                 within 10 days of first possessing or being
                                                                 made aware of that data.
                                                                (b) Based on the information described in
                                                                 paragraph (a) and any other information
                                                                 received from any source, the Regional
                                                                 Administrator will make a preliminary
                                                                 determination as to whether the reported
                                                                 information requires Agency action to protect
                                                                 human health or the environment. Further action
                                                                 may include suspending, or revoking the
                                                                 exclusion, or other appropriate response
                                                                 necessary to protect human health and the
                                                                 environment.
                                                                (c) If the Regional Administrator determines
                                                                 that the reported information does require
                                                                 Agency action, the Regional Administrator will
                                                                 notify GM in writing of the actions the
                                                                 Regional Administrator believes are necessary
                                                                 to protect human health and the environment.
                                                                 The notice shall include a statement of the
                                                                 proposed action and a statement providing GM
                                                                 with an opportunity to present information as
                                                                 to why the proposed Agency action is not
                                                                 necessary or to suggest an alternative action.
                                                                 GM shall have 10 days from the date of the
                                                                 Regional Administrator's notice to present the
                                                                 information.
                                                                (d) If after 10 days GM presents no further
                                                                 information, the Regional Administrator will
                                                                 issue a final written determination describing
                                                                 the Agency actions that are necessary to
                                                                 protect human health or the environment. Any
                                                                 required action described in the Regional
                                                                 Administrator's determination shall become
                                                                 effective immediately, unless the Regional
                                                                 Administrator provides otherwise.
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 55452]]

[FR Doc. 99-26662 Filed 10-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P