[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 144 (Thursday, July 26, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38969-38982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-18533]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW-FRL-7003-4]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

[[Page 38970]]


ACTION: Proposed amendment and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, also ``the Agency'' 
or ``we'' in this preamble) is proposing to modify an exclusion (or 
``delisting'') from the lists of hazardous waste, previously granted to 
Geological Reclamation Operations and Waste Systems, Inc. (GROWS) in 
Morrisville, Pennsylvania. This action responds to a petition for 
amendment submitted by GROWS to increase the maximum annual volume 
covered by its current exclusion.
    The Agency is basing its tentative decision to grant the petition 
for amendment on an evaluation of specific information provided by the 
petitioner. This tentative decision, if finalized, would increase the 
annual volume of waste 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 amendment. We 
will accept comments on this proposal until September 10, 2001. 
Comments postmarked after the close of the comment period will be 
stamped ``late.'' These late comments may not be considered in 
formulating a final decision.
    Any person may request a hearing on this tentative decision to 
grant the petition for amendment by filing a request by August 10, 
2001. The request must contain the information prescribed in 40 CFR 
260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Please send two copies of your comments to David M. 
Friedman, Technical Support Branch (3WC11), U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 
Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103-2029.
    Your request for a hearing should be addressed to James J. Burke, 
Director, Waste and Chemicals Management Division (3WC00), U.S. EPA 
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103-2029.
    The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule is located at the 
offices of U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA, 
19103-2029, and is available for your viewing from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. Please call 
David M. Friedman at (215) 814-3395 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 document, please contact David M. Friedman at the address above or 
at (215) 814-3395.

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

I. Background
    A. What Laws and Regulations Give EPA the Authority To Delist 
Waste?
    B. What Is Currently Delisted At GROWS?
    C. What Does GROWS Request in Its Petition For Amendment?
II. Disposition of Petition Amendment
    A. What Information Did GROWS Submit To Support Its Petition For 
Amendment?
    B. What Method Did EPA Use To Evaluate Risk?
    1. How did EPA evaluate risk when it reviewed the 1986 GROWS' 
petition?
    2. How did EPA evaluate risk for this proposed amendment?
    C. What Conclusion Did EPA Reach?
III. Conditions for Exclusion
    A. What Are the Maximum Allowable Concentrations of Hazardous 
Constituents?
    B. How Frequently Must GROWS Test the Waste and How Must It Be 
Managed Until It Is Disposed?
    C. What Must GROWS Do If the Process Changes?
    D. What Data Must GROWS Submit?
    E. What Happens If GROWS Fails To Meet the Conditions of the 
Exclusion?
IV. Effect on State Authorization
V. Effective Date
VI. Administrative Requirements

I. Background

A. What Laws and Regulations Give EPA the Authority To Delist Waste?

    EPA published amended lists of hazardous wastes from non-specific 
and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its final and 
interim final regulations implementing Section 3001 of RCRA. These 
lists have been amended several times, and are found at 40 CFR 261.31 
and 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 40 CFR Part 261 (i.e., ignitability, 
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity), or (2) they meet the criteria 
for listing contained in 40 CFR 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, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion 
procedure which allows a person to demonstrate that a specific listed 
waste from a particular generating facility should not be regulated as 
a hazardous waste, and should, therefore, be delisted.
    According to 40 CFR 260.22(a)(1), in order to have these wastes 
excluded a petitioner must first show that wastes generated at its 
facility do not meet any of the criteria for which the wastes were 
listed. The criteria which we use to list wastes are found in 40 CFR 
261.11. An explanation of how these criteria apply to a particular 
waste is contained in the background document for that listed waste.
    In addition to the criteria that we considered when we originally 
listed the waste, we are also required by the provisions of 40 CFR 
260.22(a)(2) to consider any other factors (including additional 
constituents), if there is a reasonable basis to believe that these 
factors could cause the waste to be hazardous.
    In a delisting petition, the petitioner must demonstrate that the 
waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics 
defined in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261 (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.
    A generator remains obligated under RCRA to confirm that its waste 
remains non-hazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics 
defined in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261 even if EPA has delisted its 
waste.
    We also define residues from the treatment, storage, or disposal of 
listed hazardous wastes and mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes 
as hazardous wastes. (See 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i), 
referred to as the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules, 
respectively.) These wastes are also eligible for exclusion but remain 
hazardous wastes until delisted.

B. What Is Currently Delisted at GROWS?

    GROWS operates a commercial landfill and wastewater treatment plant 
in Morrisville, Pennsylvania. On November 13, 1986, GROWS petitioned 
EPA under the provisions in 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 to exclude from 
hazardous waste regulation a wastewater treatment sludge filter cake 
derived from the treatment of landfill leachate. This leachate 
originates, in part, from its closed landfill containing a mixture of 
solid wastes and hazardous wastes. The wastewater treatment plant also 
treats non-hazardous leachate from non-hazardous waste landfills.
    In support of its petition, GROWS submitted sufficient information 
to EPA to allow us to determine that the waste was not hazardous based 
upon the criteria for which it was listed and that

[[Page 38971]]

no other hazardous constituents were present in the waste at levels of 
regulatory concern.
    A full description of these wastes and the Agency's evaluation of 
the 1986 GROWS' petition are contained in the Proposed Rule and Request 
for Comments published in the Federal Register on September 17, 1990 
(55 FR 38090).
    After evaluating public comment on the Proposed Rule, we published 
a final decision in the Federal Register on August 20, 1991, (56 FR 
41286) to exclude GROWS' wastewater treatment sludge filter cake 
derived from the treatment of EPA Hazardous Waste No. F039 (multi-
source leachate) from the list of hazardous wastes found in 40 CFR 
261.31.
    EPA's final decision in 1991 was conditioned on the volume of waste 
identified in the 1986 GROWS' petition. Specifically, the exclusion 
granted by EPA is limited to a maximum annual volume of 1000 cubic 
yards. Any additional waste volume in excess of this limit generated by 
GROWS in a calendar year was to have been managed as hazardous waste.

C. What Does GROWS Request in Its Petition for Amendment?

    As a result of an increase in wastewater treatment sludge filter 
cake production associated with an increase in the efficiency of the 
wastewater treatment operation, GROWS petitioned EPA on June 12, 2000 
for an amendment to its August 20, 1991 final exclusion. In its 
petition, GROWS requested an increase in the maximum annual waste 
volume that is covered by its exclusion from 1000 cubic yards to 2000 
cubic yards.

II. Disposition of Petition Amendment

A. What Information Did GROWS Submit To Support its Petition for 
Amendment?

    The exclusion which we granted to GROWS on August 20, 1991, is a 
conditional exclusion. In order for its exclusion to remain effective, 
GROWS must verify that its waste meets prescribed delisting levels. 
Prior to disposal, GROWS is required to sample each batch of waste 
generated over a four week period. Samples must be analyzed for a list 
of verification constituents. If the concentration of any verification 
constituent exceeds its respective maximum allowable concentration, the 
batch must either be retreated until it meets these levels, or managed 
and disposed of as a hazardous waste in accordance with Subtitle C of 
RCRA.
    In order to support its Petition For Amendment, GROWS submitted its 
verification testing results from the past two years to EPA. This 
submission consisted of the results of twenty-seven (27) analyses 
conducted on samples collected for the time period from December 15, 
1997, until December 10, 1999.
    The verification testing program prescribed by EPA in the August 
20, 1991 exclusion requires GROWS to analyze metal constituents using 
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), cyanide using a 
distilled water leaching procedure, and organics using total 
constituent analysis.
    The tools used by EPA in its evaluation of petitioned wastes have 
changed since the 1986 GROWS' delisting petition was granted. The 
changes in the methods used by EPA in evaluation of requests for 
exclusions are described below and in section II. B. of this preamble.
    In addition to the two most recent years of verification testing 
results mentioned above, we also requested that GROWS submit the 
results of total constituent analyses for a minimum of four samples for 
the inorganic constituents. This was necessary because both total 
constituent analysis data and leachate data are now used in assessing 
the potential risk from disposal of a petitioned waste, and there is no 
reliable way to estimate actual total constituent concentrations of the 
inorganic constituents from leachate data. GROWS submitted this 
additional information on June 12, 2000, September 21, 2000, and 
February 5, 2001.
    The maximum total and leachate concentrations for the inorganic 
constituents which were found in the verification testing results and 
in the additional information provided by GROWS are presented in Table 
1.

Table 1.--Maximum Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations \1\ WWTP
                               Filter Cake
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Total
                                            constituent    TCLP leachate
         Inorganic constituents            concentration   concentration
                                              (mg/kg)         (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic.................................            11.6          0.017
Barium..................................            47.0          0.77
Cadmium.................................             0.5          0.02
Chromium................................             9.3          0.02
Lead....................................             8.0          0.65
Mercury.................................             0.3          0.0002
Nickel..................................             4.0          0.098
Selenium................................             0.3          0.008
Silver..................................             0.5          0.02
Cyanide (total).........................             1.0          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 concentration
  specified in the table.

    The verification testing program specified by the current exclusion 
for GROWS requires only total constituent analysis for the organic 
constituents but not leachate testing. Leachate testing for organic 
constituents was not required at the time that the 1986 GROWS'' 
petition was being evaluated. Organic constituent mobility was 
estimated by modeling rather than testing.
    Because the Agency had not yet developed a reliable leachate test 
to estimate the migration potential of organic constituents, leachable 
concentrations of organic constituents in the waste were estimated 
using a model known as the Organic Leachate Model (OLM). The OLM was 
based on an empirical relationship involving a waste constituent's 
aqueous solubility that was derived from a supporting data base of 
waste constituent concentrations and experimentally measured leachate 
concentrations. (See 50 FR 48953 for a

[[Page 38972]]

complete description of the model, and 51 FR 41084 for a description of 
changes that were made to the model in response to public comment).
    The Agency made it clear that the OLM was an interim tool to be 
used for this purpose and that it would be replaced when an analytical 
organic leaching test was developed.
    On March 29, 1990, we promulgated the Toxicity Characteristic Rule 
which included the TCLP (61 FR 11798). In the preamble to this Rule, we 
stated that it was our intention to use the TCLP in the delisting 
program. However, we continued to use the OLM instead of the TCLP in 
the evaluation of those petitions (including the GROWS'' petition) that 
were then currently being processed.
    Because the verification testing program specified by the current 
exclusion for GROWS does not require TCLP testing for organic 
constituents, we have evaluated its request for an amendment by 
calculating theoretical maximum leachate concentrations for the organic 
constituents by applying the most conservative assumption.
    Analyzing a waste for TCLP constituent concentrations involves 
application of the TCLP (a leaching procedure) followed by analysis of 
the TCLP leachate for the constituents of concern. For a waste that is 
a physical solid (i.e., a waste that does not contain a liquid phase), 
the maximum theoretical leachate concentration can be calculated by 
dividing the total concentration of the constituent by twenty. This 
twenty-fold dilution is part of the TCLP protocol and represents the 
liquid to solid ratio employed in the test procedure.
    If the TCLP were performed on the actual wastewater treatment 
sludge filter cake, the concentration of the constituents in the TCLP 
leachate could not exceed the calculated value derived from the 
procedure described above. The actual TCLP concentration, if 
determined, may be substantially less than the calculated value because 
the calculated value assumes that 100 percent of the constituent 
leaches from the waste.
    The maximum (measured) total and maximum (calculated) leachate 
concentrations for all detected organic constituents in GROWS' waste 
samples are presented in Table 2.

  Table 2.--Maximum Total Constitutent \1\ and Leachate Concentrations
                            WWTP Filter Cake
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Measured total    Calculated
                                            constituent    TCLP leachate
          Organic constituents             concentration   concentration
                                              (mg/kg)         (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone.................................           1.3           0.065
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthlate...............           1.09          0.0545
Carbon Disulfide........................           0.011         0.00055
Chloroform..............................           0.12          0.006
Cresol, Total...........................           1.23          0.0615
Ethyl Benzene...........................           0.028         0.0014
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone)........           1.8           0.09
Methylene Chloride......................           0.096         0.0048
Napthalene..............................           0.75          0.0375
Phenol..................................           2.6           0.13
Xylene..................................           0.16          0.008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.

    EPA requires that petitioners submit signed certifications 
affirming the truthfulness, accuracy and completeness of the 
information in their delisting petitions (See 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12)). 
GROWS submitted signed certifications dated June 12, 2000, October 2, 
2000, and February 5, 2001, stating that all submitted information is 
true, accurate and complete.

B. What Method Did EPA Use To Evaluate Risk?

1. How Did EPA Evaluate Risk When It Reviewed the 1986 GROWS' Petition?
    For the current GROWS' delisting determinations, we used the 
following fate and transport model to predict the concentration of 
hazardous constituents that may be released from the petitioned waste 
after disposal so that we could determine the potential impact on human 
health and the environment. This transport model was used to estimate 
the potential impact of leachable hazardous constituents on an 
underlying aquifer.
    On February 26, 1985, the Agency first proposed the use of an 
analytical approach to evaluate the potential impact of wastes that are 
landfilled. The approach proposed at that time involved the use of a 
groundwater transport model known as the vertical and horizontal spread 
(VHS) model, adapted from Domenico and Palciauskas.\1\ Under a landfill 
or surface impoundment scenario, the plausible route of exposure that 
was of most concern to the Agency was the ingestion of contaminated 
groundwater. The VHS model approximated the transport processes likely 
to occur in an aquifer below a waste disposal site. The model predicted 
the dilution of the contaminants in a drinking water aquifer as a 
result of dispersion in the vertical and horizontal directions. (See 50 
FR 7896-7900 for a complete description of the model, and 50 FR 48886-
48910 for a description of changes that were made to the model in 
response to public comment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Domenico, P.A. and Palciauskas, V.V, Ground Water, v.20, 
no.3, pp. 303-311 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In applying the VHS model, the Agency made a variety of assumptions 
to account for a reasonable worst-case disposal scenario. The VHS model 
was based on the premise that a waste being evaluated was placed in a 
40 foot wide, 8 foot deep trench at a disposal site (i.e., a landfill). 
The length of the trench is a function of the volume of the petitioned 
waste. The model assumed an infinite source of waste and no aquifer 
recharge. The model mathematically simulates the migration of toxicant-
bearing leachate from the waste into the uppermost underlying aquifer, 
and the subsequent dilution of the toxicants due to dispersion within 
the aquifer. The Agency used this model to predict the maximum 
concentration of the diluted toxicant at a compliance point located 500 
feet from the disposal site. The model did not consider biodegradation,

[[Page 38973]]

sorption, hydrolysis, or unsaturated soil conditions.
    The waste-specific parameters used in the VHS model were the 
leachate concentrations of constituents of concern and the annual 
volume of the petitioned waste.
    Because of acknowledged limitations of the VHS such as concerns 
with its ability to consider large waste volumes, wastes stored in 
surface impoundments, unsaturated soil conditions, groundwater 
recharge, and longitudinal contaminant dispersion in the aquifer, the 
Agency worked to develop a more sophisticated model that would account 
for these waste disposal assumptions and transport processes.
    EPA stated in the final rule promulgating the Toxicity 
Characteristic that it would begin using a more sophisticated model for 
the delisting program (See 55 FR 11833; March 29, 1990). Starting with 
a proposed rule on July 18, 1991, (56 FR 32993) the fate and transport 
of constituents in leachate from the bottom of the waste unit through 
the unsaturated zone and to a drinking water well in the saturated zone 
was estimated using the EPA Composite Model for Landfill (EPACML). The 
EPACML accounts for:
     One-dimensional steady and uniform advective flow;
     Contaminant dispersion in the longitudinal, lateral, and 
vertical directions;
     Sorption.
    However, continued advances in groundwater fate and transport 
modeling have been made in recent years and we now propose the use of a 
more advanced groundwater fate and transport model for delisting 
evaluations.
2. How Did EPA Evaluate Risk for This Proposed Amendment?
    a. Introduction. 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 used a fate and transport model to predict the 
release of hazardous constituents from the petitioned waste once it is 
disposed of to evaluate the potential impact on human health and the 
environment. To accomplish this, we used a Windows-based software tool, 
the Delisting Risk Assessment Software Program (DRAS), to estimate the 
potential releases of waste constituents and to predict the risk 
associated with those releases. DRAS accomplishes this using several 
EPA models including the EPA Composite Model for Leachate Migration 
with Transformation Products (EPACMTP) fate and transport model for 
estimating groundwater releases. Additional information about the 
EPACMTP model is provided below. For a detailed description of the DRAS 
program, See 65 FR 58015, September 27, 2000. The technical support 
document for the DRAS program is available in the public docket for 
this proposed amendment.
    Several revisions have been made to the DRAS program in order to 
improve the modeling. Specifically, (a) the groundwater inhalation 
pathway was revised to reflect recent advances in modeling household 
inhalation from home water use (e.g., showering); (b) the equations 
used to predict surface volatilization from a landfill have been 
modified to more accurately reflect true waste concentration releases; 
(c) the method used to estimate the amount of a constituent that is 
released to surface water and which eventually becomes freely dissolved 
in the water column has been improved; and (d) the DRAS was modified to 
account for bioaccumulation of methyl mercury as a result of the 
release of mercury into the surface water column.
    For a more detailed description of the revisions to the DRAS 
program listed above, See 65 FR 75637, December 4, 2000.
    b. What fate and transport model does the Agency use in the DRAS 
for evaluating the risks to groundwater from the proposed exempted 
waste? We have used the EPACMTP in this tentative delisting 
determination. The EPACMTP considers the subsurface fate and transport 
of chemical constituents. The EPACMTP is capable of simulating the fate 
and transport of dissolved contaminants from a point of release at the 
base of a waste management unit through the unsaturated zone and 
underlying groundwater to a receptor well at an arbitrary downstream 
location in the aquifer. The model accounts for the following 
mechanisms affecting contaminant migration: Transport by advection and 
dispersion, retardation resulting from reversible linear or nonlinear 
equilibrium adsorption onto the soil and aquifer solid phase, and 
biochemical degradation processes.
    c. Why is the EPACMTP fate and transport model an improvement over 
the EPACML? The modeling approach used for this proposed rulemaking 
includes three major enhancements over the EPACML. The enhancements 
include:
    1--Incorporation of additional fate and transport processes (e.g., 
degradation of chemical constituents);
    2--Use of enhanced flow and transport solution algorithms and 
techniques (e.g., three-dimensional transport) and;
    3--Revision of the Monte Carlo methodology (e.g., site-based 
implementation of available input data).
    A discussion of the key enhancements which have been implemented in 
the EPACMTP is presented in the Agency's Proposed Rule found at 65 FR 
58015, September 27, 2000, and the details are provided in the proposed 
1995 Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) background documents 
(60 FR 66344, December 21,1995).
C. What Conclusion Did EPA Reach?
    EPA believes that the information provided by GROWS provides a 
reasonable basis to grant GROWS' petition for an amendment to its 
current delisting. We, therefore, propose to grant GROWS an amendment 
for an increase in waste volume. The data submitted to support the 
petition and the Agency's evaluation show that the constituents in the 
GROWS' wastewater treatment sludge filter cake are below health-based 
levels used by the Agency for delisting decision-making even at the 
increased maximum annual waste volume of 2000 cubic years.
    For this delisting determination, we used information gathered to 
identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., groundwater, 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 GROWS' petitioned waste. 
We applied the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) described 
above to predict the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous 
constituents that may be released from the petitioned waste after 
disposal, and we determined the potential impact of the disposal of 
GROWS' petitioned waste on human health and the environment. In 
assessing potential risks to groundwater, we used the increased maximum 
waste volume and the maximum measured or calculated leachate 
concentrations as inputs to the DRAS program to estimate the 
constituent concentrations in the groundwater at a hypothetical 
receptor well downgradient from the disposal site. Using an established 
risk level, the DRAS program can back-calculate receptor well 
concentrations (referred to as a compliance-point concentration) using 
standard risk assessment algorithms and Agency health-based numbers.
    EPA Region III generally defines acceptable risk levels for the 
delisting program as wastes with an excess cancer risk of no more than 
1  x  10-6 and a

[[Page 38974]]

hazard quotient of no more than 0.1 for individual constituents. These 
are the criteria that we applied to this petition with one exception. A 
detectable concentration for arsenic of 0.017 mg/l was found in one out 
of thirty-one samples analyzed. The calculated chemical cumulative risk 
for ingestion of carcinogenic arsenic at this level is 5.67  x  
10-6. However, we believe that this risk is acceptable 
because arsenic was detected in only one sample and because the risk is 
within a generally acceptable range of 1  x  10-64 and 1  x  
10-66. This is the type of evaluation that the Region III 
delisting program makes on a case-specific basis.
    Furthermore, EPA recently lowered the Safe Drinking Water Act 
(SDWA) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for arsenic from 50 g/l 
to 10 g/l (See 66 FR 6976, January 22, 2001). Although this 
recently promulgated level is being reexamined, if the maximum 
allowable leachate concentration was calculated using the new MCL, the 
maximum allowable leachate concentration for this waste would be 0.616 
mg/l, over 30 times higher than the one detected arsenic leachate 
concentration. EPA's July 1996 Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide, 
EPA/540/R-96/018, states that acceptable levels of contaminants in 
soils for the groundwater pathway could be derived from SWDA Maximum 
Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) or MCLs. Because the maximum allowable 
leachate concentration calculated using the new MCL is significantly 
higher than the concentration calculated using the health-based limit, 
and because EPA's May 2000 Technical Fact Sheet: Proposed Rule for 
Arsenic in Drinking Water and Clarifications to Compliance and New 
Source Contaminants Monitoring, EPA 815-F-00-011, states that naturally 
occurring levels of arsenic are often higher than these levels, we 
believe that there can be some flexibility used in setting the 
allowable concentration of arsenic in leachate.
    Therefore, for this amendment, we propose to set the maximum 
allowable leachate concentration for arsenic at 0.3 mg/l which is the 
concentration that corresponds to the 1  x  10-4 risk level. 
This concentration is lower than the 0.79 mg/l level, which is the 
maximum allowable leachate concentration for arsenic in the current 
GROWS' delisting. Delisting levels for carcinogenic constituents other 
than arsenic will still be set at concentrations which correspond to 
the target risk level of 1  x  10-6.
    Using the maximum compliance-point concentrations and the EPACMTP 
fate and transport modeling factors, the DRAS further back-calculates 
the maximum waste constituent concentrations which would not exceed the 
compliance-point concentrations in groundwater.
    The Agency believes that the EPACMTP fate and transport model 
represents a reasonable worst-case scenario for possible groundwater 
contamination resulting from 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 the RCRA Subtitle C program. The use of a 
reasonable worst-case scenario results in conservative values for the 
compliance-point concentrations and ensures that the waste, once 
removed from hazardous waste regulation, will not pose a significant 
threat to human health or the environment.
    Similarly, the DRAS used the increased waste volume requested in 
the petition and the maximum reported total concentrations to predict 
possible risks associated with releases of waste constituents through 
surface pathways (e.g., volatilization or wind-blown particulate from 
the landfill). As in the groundwater analyses, the DRAS uses the 
established acceptable risk level, the health-based data, and standard 
risk assessment and exposure algorithms to predict maximum compliance-
point concentrations of waste constituents at a hypothetical point of 
exposure. Using fate and transport equations, the DRAS uses the maximum 
compliance-point concentrations and back-calculates the maximum 
allowable waste constituent concentrations. In most cases, because a 
delisted waste is no longer subject to hazardous waste control, the 
Agency is generally unable to predict, and does not presently control, 
how a petitioner will manage a waste after it is excluded. Therefore, 
we believe that it is inappropriate to consider extensive site-specific 
factors when applying the fate and transport model.
    As a condition of GROWS' current delisting, GROWS must continue to 
test for a list of constituents. Based on the increased waste volume 
requested in the petition and the improved risk assessment methodology, 
new proposed maximum allowable leachate concentrations and maximum 
allowable total constituent concentrations (as explained below) for 
these constituents were derived by back-calculating from the delisting 
health-based levels through the proposed fate and transport model for a 
landfill management scenario. The maximum allowable concentration of 
constituents in leachate for all inorganic constituents and the maximum 
allowable concentration of constituents in leachate or waste for all 
organic constituents in GROWS' waste samples are presented in Table 3 
below. These concentrations (i.e., delisting levels) are part of the 
proposed verification testing conditions of this amendment.

III. Conditions for Exclusion

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

    The following table summarizes the maximum allowable constituent 
concentrations (delisting levels) for GROWS'' waste. We recalculated 
these delisting levels for each constituent that is part of GROWS'' 
current delisting using the DRAS and the increased maximum annual waste 
volume of 2000 cubic yards. These proposed delisting levels were 
derived from the health-based calculations performed by the DRAS 
program using either strict health-based levels or MCLs, or from 
Toxicity Characteristic regulatory levels, whichever resulted in a 
lower (i.e., more conservative) concentration.
    The current maximum allowable constituent concentrations (delisting 
levels) for GROWS as found in 40 CFR 261 Appendix IX, Table 1, are 
specified as leachate concentrations for inorganic constituents and as 
total constituent concentrations for organic constituents for reasons 
set forth in Section II.B. of this preamble.
    Based on the type of waste being evaluated and using the current 
evaluation techniques developed by the Agency, we believe that 
groundwater contamination would continue to be the most critical 
exposure pathway from mismanagement of the waste. Therefore, for this 
type of evaluation, delisting levels are now typically expressed as 
TCLP leachate concentrations for both inorganic and organic 
constituents.
    However, because we are proposing to amend the current GROWS' 
delisting, we have tentatively decided to give GROWS the option of 
using either: (a) Delisting levels calculated as TCLP leachate 
concentrations for both inorganic and organic constituents; or (b) 
delisting levels calculated as TCLP leachate concentrations for the 
inorganic constituents and delisting levels for the organic 
constituents which are derived from the TCLP leachate concentrations 
and recalculated as total constituent concentrations as described 
below. This option is similar to the current GROWS' verification 
testing program. The recalculated total constituent concentrations are 
equally or even more protective than the actual TCLP concentration. In 
section II.A. of this preamble, we explained that the

[[Page 38975]]

TCLP uses a liquid to solid ratio of twenty to one. For a waste such as 
the wastewater treatment sludge filter cake generated by GROWS that is 
a physical solid (i.e., a waste that does not contain a liquid phase), 
the smallest (or lowest) theoretical concentration of a constituent in 
a waste that can result in a particular TCLP concentration would be the 
TCLP concentration multiplied by a factor of twenty. Again, because 
this calculation assumes that all of the constituent present in the 
waste will leach from the waste, it is the most conservative 
assumption. The actual total constituent concentration that would 
result in a particular TCLP concentration would likely be much higher.
    Both maximum allowable leachate concentrations and maximum 
allowable total concentrations for the organic constituents that are 
part of the GROWS' verification testing program are presented in Table 
3.

Table 3.--Maximum Allowable Concentration of Constituents in Leachate or
                              in Waste \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Maximum allowable
                                      leachate        Maximum allowable
          Constituent            concentration (mg/  total concentration
                                         l)                (mg/kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Arsenic.......................  3.00e-01             ...................
Barium........................  2.34e+01             ...................
Cadmium.......................  1.80e-01             ...................
Chromium......................  5.00e+00             ...................
Lead..........................  5.00e+00             ...................
Mercury.......................  7.70e-02             ...................
Nickel........................  9.05e+00             ...................
Selenium......................  6.97e-01             ...................
Silver........................  1.23e+00             ...................
Cyanide.......................  4.33e+00             ...................
Acetone.......................  2.28e+01             4.56e+02
Acetonitrile..................  3.92e+00             7.84e+01
Acetophenone..................  2.28e+01             4.56e+02
Acrolein......................  1.53e+03             3.06e+04
Acrylonitrile.................  7.80e-03             1.56e-01
Aldrin........................  5.81e-06             1.16e-04
Aniline.......................  7.39e-01             1.48e+01
Anthracene....................  8.00e+00             1.60e+02
Benz(a)anthracene.............  1.93e-04             3.86e-03
Benzene.......................  1.45e-01             2.90e+00
Benzo(a)pyrene................  1.18e-05             2.36e-04
Benzo(b)fluoranthene..........  1.07e-04             2.14e-03
Benzo(k)fluoranthene..........  1.49e-03             2.98e-02
Bis(2-chlorethyl)ether........  3.19e-02             6.38e-01
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate....  8.96e-02             1.79e+00
Bromodichloromethane..........  6.80e-02             1.36e+00
Bromoform(Tribromomethane)....  5.33e-01             1.07e+01
Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol, 2-sec- 2.28e-01             4.56e+00
 (Dinoseb).
Butylbenzylphthalate..........  9.29e+00             1.86e+02
Carbon disulfide..............  2.28e+01             4.56e+02
Carbon tetrachloride..........  4.50e-02             9.00e-01
Chlordane.....................  5.11e-04             1.02e-02
Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-......  2.97e+02             5.94e+03
Chloroaniline, p-.............  9.14e-01             1.83e+01
Chlorobenzene.................  6.08e+00             1.22e+02
Chlorobenzilate...............  4.85e-02             9.70e-01
Chlorodibromomethane..........  5.02e-02             1.00e+00
Chloroform....................  7.79e-02             1.56e+00
Chlorophenol, 2-..............  1.14e+00             2.28e+01
Chrysene......................  2.04e-02             4.08e-01
Cresol........................  1.14e+00             2.28e+01
DDD...........................  5.83e-04             1.17e-02
DDE...........................  1.37e-04             2.74e-03
DDT...........................  2.57e-04             5.14e-03
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene.........  5.59e-06             1.12e-04
Dibromo-3-chloropropane, 1, 2-  3.51e-03             7.02e-02
Dichlorobenzene, 1,3-.........  9.35e+00             1.87e+02
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-.........  1.25e+01             2.50e+02
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-.........  1.39e-01             2.78e+00
Dichlorobenzidine, 3,3'-......  9.36e-03             1.87e-01
Dichlorodifluoromethane.......  4.57e+01             9.14e+02
Dichloroethane, 1,1-..........  1.20e+00             2.40e+01
Dichloroethane, 1,2-..........  2.57e-03             5.14e-02
Dichloroethylene, 1,1-........  7.02e-03             1.40e-01
Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2-..  4.57e+00             9.14e+01
Dichlorophenol, 2,4-..........  6.85e-01             1.37e+01
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid,     2.28e+00             4.56e+01
 2,4-(2, 4-D).

[[Page 38976]]

 
Dichloropropane, 1,2-.........  1.14e-01             2.28e+00
Dichloropropene, 1,3-.........  2.34e-02             4.68e-01
Dieldrin......................  6.23e+01             1.25e+03
Diethyl phthalate.............  2.21e+02             4.42e+03
Dimethoate....................  6.01e+01             1.20e+03
Dimethyl phthalate............  1.20e+02             2.40e+03
Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene,      1.55e-06             3.10e-05
 7,12-.
Dimethylphenol, 2,4-..........  4.57e+00             9.14e+01
Di-n-butyl phthalate..........  5.29e+00             1.06e+02
Dinitrobenzene, 1,3-..........  2.28e-02             4.56e-01
Dinitromethylphenol, 4,6-, 2-.  2.16e-02             4.32e-01
Dinitrophenol, 2,4-...........  4.57e-01             9.14e+00
Dinitrotoluene, 2,6-..........  6.54e-03             1.31e-01
Di-n-octyl phthalate..........  1.12e-02             2.24e-01
Dioxane, 1,4-.................  3.83e-01             7.66e+00
Diphenylamine.................  3.76e+00             7.52e+01
Disulfoton....................  3.80e+02             7.60e+03
Endosulfan....................  1.37e+00             2.74e+01
Endrin........................  2.00e-02             4.00e-01
Ethylbenzene..................  1.66e+01             3.32e+02
Ethylene Dibromide............  4.13e-03             8.26e-02
Fluoranthene..................  5.16e-01             1.03e+01
Fluorene......................  1.78e+00             3.56e+01
Heptachlor....................  8.00e-03             1.60e-01
Heptachlor epoxide............  8.00e-03             1.60e-01
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene......  9.61e-03             1.92e-01
Hexachlorobenzene.............  9.67e-05             1.93e-03
Hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma-   4.00e-01             8.00e+00
 (Lindane).
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.....  1.66e+04             3.32e+05
Hexachloroethane..............  1.76e-01             3.52e+00
Hexachlorophene...............  3.13e-04             6.26e-03
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene......  6.04e-05             1.21e-03
Isobutyl alcohol..............  6.85e+01             1.37e+03
Isophorone....................  4.44e+00             8.88e+01
Methacrylonitrile.............  2.28e-02             4.56e-01
Methoxychlor..................  1.00e+01             2.00e+02
Methyl bromide (Bromomethane).  1.28e+02             2.56e+03
Methyl chloride                 1.80e-01             3.60e+00
 (Chloromethane).
Methyl ethylketone............  1.37e+02             2.74e+03
Methyl isobutylketone.........  1.83e+01             3.66e+02
Methyl methacrylate...........  1.03e+03             2.06e+04
Methyl parathion..............  1.27e+02             2.54e+03
Methylene chloride............  2.88e-01             5.76e+00
Naphthalene...................  1.50e+00             3.00e+01
Nitrobenzene..................  1.14e-01             2.28e+00
Nitrosodiethylamine...........  2.81e-05             5.62e-04
Nitrosodimethylamine..........  8.26e-05             1.65e-03
Nitrosodi-n-butylamine........  7.80e-04             1.56e-02
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine.....  6.02e-04             1.20e-02
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine........  8.60e-01             1.72e+01
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine..........  2.01e-03             4.02e-02
Pentachlorobenzene............  1.15e-02             2.30e-01
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)  5.00e-03             1.00e-01
Pentachlorophenol.............  4.10e-03             8.20e-02
Phenanthrene..................  2.09e-01             4.18e+00
Phenol........................  1.37e+02             2.74e+03
Polychlorinated biphenyls.....  3.00e-05             6.00e-04
Pronamide.....................  1.71e+01             3.42e+02
Pyrene........................  3.96e-01             7.92e+00
Pyridine......................  2.28e-01             4.56e+00
Styrene.......................  6.08e+00             1.22e+02
Tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,4,5-..  9.43e-03             1.89e-01
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-...  4.39e-01             8.78e+00
Tetrachloroethylene...........  8.55e-02             1.71e+00
Tetrachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6-...  1.81e+00             3.62e+01
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate  3.01e+05             6.02e+06
 (Sulfotep).
Toluene.......................  4.57e+01             9.14e+02
Toxaphene.....................  5.00e-01             1.00e+01

[[Page 38977]]

 
Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-......  7.24e-01             1.45e+01
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-.......  7.60e+00             1.52e+02
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-.......  7.80e-02             1.56e+00
Trichloroethylene.............  3.04e-01             6.08e+00
Trichlorofluoromethane........  6.85e+01             1.37e+03
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5-.......  9.16e+00             1.83e+02
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-.......  2.76e-01             5.52e+00
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid,    2.28e+00             4.56e+01
 2,4,5- (245-T).
Trichlorophenoxypropionic       1.00e+00             2.00e+01
 acid, 2,4,5- (Silvex).
Trichloropropane, 1,2,3-......  7.69e-04             1.54e-02
Trinitrobenzene, sym-.........  6.49e+00             1.30e+02
Vinyl chloride................  2.34e-03             4.68e-02
Xylenes (total)...............  3.20e+02             6.40e+03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term ``e'' in the table is a variation of ``scientific
  notation'' in base 10 exponential form and is used in this table
  because it is a convenient way to represent very large or small
  numbers. For example, 3.00e-03 is equivalent to 3.00  x  10-\3\ and
  represents the number 0.003.

B. How Frequently Must GROWS Test the Waste and How Must It Be Managed 
Until It Is Disposed?

    GROWS must continue to test and manage its waste according to the 
conditions set forth in their current delisting. We are not proposing 
in this amendment to change the method of sample collection, the 
frequency of sample analysis or the waste holding procedures currently 
specified.

C. What Must GROWS Do if the Process Changes?

    We are proposing to add this condition as part of the amendment. If 
GROWS significantly changes the treatment process or the chemicals used 
in the treatment process, GROWS may not manage the wastewater treatment 
sludge filter cake generated from the new process under this exclusion 
until it has met the following conditions: (a) GROWS must demonstrate 
that the waste meets the delisting levels set forth in Section III. A. 
of this preamble; (b) it must demonstrate that no new hazardous 
constituents listed in Appendix VIII of Part 261 have been introduced 
into the manufacturing or treatment process; and (c) it must obtain 
prior written approval from EPA and the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection to manage the waste under this exclusion. This 
condition allows GROWS the flexibility to modify its process (e.g., 
changes in equipment or operating conditions). However, if any 
significant change is made which may affect the composition of the 
waste, GROWS must demonstrate that the waste continues to meet the 
delisting criteria and must obtain prior written approval from EPA and 
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

D. What Data Must GROWS Submit?

    We are proposing to add this condition as part of the amendment. 
The data obtained under Paragraphs B and C of this Section must be 
submitted to The Waste and Chemicals Management Division, U.S. EPA 
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, and The 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Land 
Recycling and Waste Management, Rachel Carson State Office Building, 
400 Market Street, 14th Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17105. Data from the 
annual verification testing must be compiled and submitted to EPA and 
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection within sixty 
(60) days from the end of the calendar year. Records of operating 
conditions and analytical data must be compiled, summarized, and 
maintained onsite for a minimum of three years commencing with the 
effective date of the finalization of this amendment and must be 
furnished upon request by EPA or the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection, and made available for inspection. Failure to 
submit the required data within the specified time period or to 
maintain the required records onsite for the specified time period will 
be considered by EPA, at its discretion, sufficient basis to revoke the 
exclusion to the extent determined necessary by EPA. All data must be 
accompanied by a signed copy of the certification statement set forth 
in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12) to attest to the truth and accuracy of the data 
submitted. Although management of the wastes covered by this petition 
would not be subject to Subtitle C jurisdiction upon final promulgation 
of an exclusion, the generator of a delisted waste must treat, store, 
or dispose of the waste in a facility that is permitted, licensed, or 
registered by a State to manage municipal or industrial solid waste.

E. What Happens if GROWS Fails To Meet the Conditions of the Exclusion?

    We are proposing to add this condition as part of the amendment. If 
GROWS violates the terms and conditions established in this exclusion, 
the Agency may start procedures to withdraw the exclusion.
    If GROWS discovers that a condition at the facility or an 
assumption related to the treatment or disposal of the excluded waste 
that was modeled or predicted in the petition does not occur as modeled 
or predicted, then GROWS must report any information relevant to that 
condition in writing to the Regional Administrator or his/her delegatee 
and The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection within 10 
days of discovering that condition.
    Upon receiving such information, regardless of its source, the 
Regional Administrator or his/her delegatee and the Pennsylvania 
Department of Environmental Protection will determine whether the 
reported condition requires further action. Further action may include 
repealing the exclusion, modifying the exclusion, or other appropriate 
action deemed necessary to protect human health or the environment.
    The purpose of this condition is to require GROWS to disclose new 
or different information related to a condition at the facility or 
disposal of the waste if it had or has bearing on the delisting. This 
will allow EPA to

[[Page 38978]]

reevaluate the exclusion if new or additional information is provided 
to the Agency by GROWS which indicates that information on which EPA's 
decision was based was incorrect or that circumstances have changed 
such that the information evaluated for the delisting is no longer 
correct or would cause EPA to deny the petition if then presented. 
Further, although this provision expressly requires GROWS to report 
differing site conditions or assumptions used in the petition within 10 
days of discovery, if EPA discovers such information itself or from a 
third party, EPA will act upon such information as appropriate.
    EPA has the authority under RCRA and the Administrative Procedures 
Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. (1978), (APA), to reopen the delisting under 
the conditions described above.

III. Effect on State Authorizations

    This proposed amendment, 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 (RCRA) or 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 amendment, if 
promulgated, may not apply in those authorized States, unless it is 
adopted by the State. If the petitioned waste is managed in any State 
with delisting authorization, GROWS must obtain delisting authorization 
from that State before the waste may be managed as nonhazardous in that 
State.

IV. Effective Date

    EPA is today making a tentative decision to grant GROWS' petition 
for amendment. This proposed 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 a facility 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 Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

V. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a rule of general applicability and therefore is not a 
``regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. Because this action is a rule of particular applicability 
relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.), or to sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because the rule will affect 
only one facility, it will not significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, as specified in section 203 of UMRA, or communities of 
Indian tribal governments, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 
67249, November 6, 2000). For the same reason, this rule will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This 
rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    This rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the 
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply. As required by 
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in 
issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate 
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and 
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

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: June 14, 2001.
Thomas C. Voltaggio,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    For the reasons set forth 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.

Appendix IX of Part 261--[Amended]

    2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of Part 261, the entry for 
``Geological Reclamation Operations and Waste Systems, Inc., 
Morrisville, PA'' is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 38979]]

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
       *                  *                   *                   *                  *                   *
                                                          *
Geological Reclamation Operations       Morrisville, Pennsylvania.....  Wastewater treatment sludge filter cake
 Waste Systems, Inc.                                                     from the treatment of EPA Hazardous
                                                                         Waste No. F039, generated at a maximum
                                                                         annual rate of 2000 cubic yards, after
                                                                         July 26, 2001; and disposed of in a
                                                                         Subtitle D landfill. The exclusion
                                                                         covers the filter cake resulting from
                                                                         the treatment of hazardous waste
                                                                         leachate derived from only ``old''
                                                                         GROWS and non-hazardous leachate
                                                                         derived from only non-hazardous waste
                                                                         sources. The exclusion does not address
                                                                         the waste disposed of in the ``old''
                                                                         GROWS'' Landfill or the grit generated
                                                                         during the removal of heavy solids from
                                                                         the landfill leachate. To ensure that
                                                                         hazardous constituents are not present
                                                                         in the filter cake at levels of
                                                                         regulatory concern, GROWS must
                                                                         implement a testing program for the
                                                                         petitioned waste. This testing program
                                                                         must meet the conditions listed below
                                                                         in order for the exclusion to be valid:
                                                                        (1) Testing: Sample collection and
                                                                         analyses, including quality control
                                                                         (QC) procedures, must be performed
                                                                         according to SW-846 methodologies.
                                                                        (A) Sample Collection: Each batch of
                                                                         waste generated over a four-week period
                                                                         must be collected in containers with a
                                                                         maximum capacity of 20-cubic yards. At
                                                                         the end of the four-week period, each
                                                                         container must be divided into four
                                                                         quadrants and a single, full-depth core
                                                                         sample shall be collected from each
                                                                         quadrant. All of the full-depth core
                                                                         samples then must be composited under
                                                                         laboratory conditions to produce one
                                                                         representative composite sample for the
                                                                         four-week period.
                                                                        (B) Sample Analysis: Each four-week
                                                                         composite sample must be analyzed for
                                                                         all of the constituents listed in
                                                                         Condition (3). The analytical data,
                                                                         including quality control information,
                                                                         must be submitted to The Waste and
                                                                         Chemicals Management Division, U.S. EPA
                                                                         Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
                                                                         Philadelphia, PA 19103, and the
                                                                         Pennsylvania Department of
                                                                         Environmental Protection, Bureau of
                                                                         Land Recycling and Waste Management,
                                                                         Rachel Carson State Office Building,
                                                                         400 Market Street, 14th Floor,
                                                                         Harrisburg, PA 17105. Data from the
                                                                         annual verification testing must be
                                                                         compiled and submitted to EPA and the
                                                                         Pennsylvania Department of
                                                                         Environmental Protection within sixty
                                                                         (60) days from the end of the calendar
                                                                         year. All data must be accompanied by a
                                                                         signed copy of the statement set forth
                                                                         in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12) to certify to
                                                                         the truth and accuracy of the data
                                                                         submitted. Records of operating
                                                                         conditions and analytical data must be
                                                                         compiled, summarized, and maintained on-
                                                                         site for a minimum of three years and
                                                                         must be furnished upon request by any
                                                                         employee or representative of EPA or
                                                                         the Pennsylvania Department of
                                                                         Environmental Protection, and made
                                                                         available for inspection.
                                                                        (2) Waste Holding: The dewatered filter
                                                                         cake must be stored as hazardous until
                                                                         the verification analyses are
                                                                         completed. If the four-week composite
                                                                         sample does not exceed any of the
                                                                         delisting levels set forth in Condition
                                                                         (3), the filter cake waste
                                                                         corresponding to this sample may be
                                                                         managed and disposed of in accordance
                                                                         with all applicable solid waste
                                                                         regulations. If the four-week composite
                                                                         sample exceeds any of the delisting
                                                                         levels set forth in Condition (3), the
                                                                         filter cake waste generated during the
                                                                         time period corresponding to the four-
                                                                         week composite sample must be retreated
                                                                         until it meets these levels (analyses
                                                                         must be repeated) or managed and
                                                                         disposed of in accordance with Subtitle
                                                                         C of RCRA. Filter cake which is
                                                                         generated but for which analyses are
                                                                         not complete or valid must be managed
                                                                         and disposed of in accordance with
                                                                         Subtitle C of RCRA, until valid
                                                                         analyses demonstrate that the waste
                                                                         meets the delisting levels.
                                                                        (3) Delisting Levels: If the
                                                                         concentrations in the four-week
                                                                         composite sample of the filter cake
                                                                         waste for any of the hazardous
                                                                         constituents listed below exceed their
                                                                         respective maximum allowable
                                                                         concentrations (mg/l or mg/kg) also
                                                                         listed below, the four-week batch of
                                                                         failing filter cake waste must either
                                                                         be retreated until it meets these
                                                                         levels or managed and disposed of in
                                                                         accordance with Subtitle C of RCRA.
                                                                         GROWS has the option of determining
                                                                         whether the filter cake waste exceeds
                                                                         the maximum allowable concentrations
                                                                         for the organic constituents by either
                                                                         performing the analysis on a TCLP
                                                                         leachate of the waste or performing
                                                                         total constituent analysis on the
                                                                         waste, and then comparing the results
                                                                         to the corresponding maximum allowable
                                                                         concentration level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                                             Maximum allowable leachate
               Constituent                         conc.  (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Inorganics:
    Arsenic..............................  3.00e-01
    Barium...............................  2.34e+01
    Cadmium..............................  1.80e-01
    Chromium.............................  5.00e+00
    Lead.................................  5.00e+00
    Mercury..............................  7.70e-02
    Nickel...............................  9.05e+00
    Selenium.............................  6.97e-01
    Silver...............................  1.23e+00

[[Page 38980]]

 
    Cyanide..............................  4.33e+00
 
 Cyanide extractions must be conducted using distilled water in place of
           the leaching media specified in the TCLP procedure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                                  Maximum allowable    Maximum allowable
          Constituent            leachate conc.  (mg/  total conc.  (mg/
                                          l)                  kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Organics:
    Acetone....................  2.28e+01             4.56e+02
    Acetonitrile...............  3.92e+00             7.84e+01
    Acetophenone...............  2.28e+01             4.56e+02
    Acrolein...................  1.53e+03             3.06e+04
    Acrylonitrile..............  7.80e-03             1.56e-01
    Aldrin.....................  5.81e-06             1.16e-04
    Aniline....................  7.39e-01             1.48e+01
    Anthracene.................  8.00e+00             1.60e+02
    Benz(a)anthracene..........  1.93e-04             3.86e-03
    Benzene....................  1.45e-01             2.90e+00
    Benzo(a)pyrene.............  1.18e-05             2.36e-04
    Benzo(b)fluoranthene.......  1.07e-04             2.14e-03
    Benzo(k)fluoranthene.......  1.49e-03             2.98e-02
    Bis(2-chlorethyl)ether.....  3.19e-02             6.38e-01
    Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.  8.96e-02             1.79e+00
    Bromodichloromethane.......  6.80e-02             1.36e+00
    Bromoform (Tribromomethane)  5.33e-01             1.07e+01
    Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol, 2-  2.28e-01             4.56e+00
     sec-(Dinoseb).
    Butylbenzylphthalate.......  9.29e+00             1.86e+02
    Carbon disulfide...........  2.28e+01             4.56e+02
    Carbon tetrachloride.......  4.50e-02             9.00e-01
    Chlordane..................  5.11e-04             1.02e-02
    Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-...  2.97e+02             5.94e+03
    Chloroaniline, p-..........  9.14e-01             1.83e+01
    Chlorobenzene..............  6.08e+00             1.22e+02
    Chlorobenzilate............  4.85e-02             9.70e-01
    Chlorodibromomethane.......  5.02e-02             1.00e+00
    Chloroform.................  7.79e-02             1.56e+00
    Chlorophenol, 2-...........  1.14e+00             2.28e+01
    Chrysene...................  2.04e-02             4.08e-01
    Cresol.....................  1.14e+00             2.28e+01
    DDD........................  5.83e-04             1.17e-02
    DDE........................  1.37e-04             2.74e-03
    DDT........................  2.57e-04             5.14e-03
    Dibenz(a,h)anthracene......  5.59e-06             1.12e-04
    Dibromo-3-chloropropane,     3.51e-03             7.02e-02
     1,2-.
    Dichlorobenzene 1,3-.......  9.35e+00             1.87e+02
    Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-......  1.25e+01             2.50e+02
    Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-......  1.39e-01             2.78e+00
    Dichlorobenzidine, 3,3'-...  9.36e-03             1.87e-01
    Dichlorodifluoromethane....  4.57e+01             9.14e+02
    Dichloroethane, 1,1-.......  1.20e+00             2.40e+01
    Dichloroethane, 1,2-.......  2.57e-03             5.14e-02
    Dichloroethylene, 1,1-.....  7.02e-03             1.40e-01
    Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2- 4.57e+00             9.14e+01
     .
    Dichlorophenol, 2,4-.......  6.85e-01             1.37e+01
    Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid,  2.28e+00             4.56e+01
     2,4-(2,4-D).
    Dichloropropane, 1,2-......  1.14e-01             2.28e+00
    Dichloropropene, 1,3-......  2.34e-02             4.68e-01
    Dieldrin...................  6.23e+01             1.25e+03
    Diethyl phthalate..........  2.21e+02             4.42e+03
    Dimethoate.................  6.01e+01             1.20e+03
    Dimethyl phthalate.........  1.20e+02             2.40e+03
    Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene,   1.55e-06             3.10e-05
     7,12-.
    Dimethylphenol, 2,4-.......  4.57e+00             9.14e+01
    Di-n-butyl phthalate.......  5.29e+00             1.06e+02
    Dinitrobenzene, 1,3-.......  2.28e-02             4.56e-01
    Dinitromethylphenol, 4,6-,2- 2.16e-02             4.32e-01
     .
    Dinitrophenol, 2,4-........  4.57e-01             9.14e+00
    Dinitrotoluene, 2,6-.......  6.54e-03             1.31e-01
    Di-n-octyl phthalate.......  1.12e-02             2.24e-01
    Dioxane, 1,4-..............  3.83e-01             7.66e+00
    Diphenylamine..............  3.76e+00             7.52e+01

[[Page 38981]]

 
    Disulfoton.................  3.80e+02             7.60e+03
    Endosulfan.................  1.37e+00             2.74e+01
    Endrin.....................  2.00e-02             4.00e-01
    Ethylbenzene...............  1.66e+01             3.32e+02
    Ethylene Dibromide.........  4.13e-03             8.26e-02
    Fluoranthene...............  5.16e-01             1.03e+01
    Fluorene...................  1.78e+00             3.56e+01
    Heptachlor.................  8.00e-03             1.60e-01
    Heptachlor epoxide.........  8.00e-03             1.60e-01
    Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene...  9.61e-03             1.92e-01
    Hexachlorobenzene..........  9.67e-05             1.93e-03
    Hexachlorocyclohexane,       4.00e-01             8.00e+00
     gamma-(Lindane).
    Hexachlorocyclopentadiene..  1.66e+04             3.32e+05
    Hexachloroethane...........  1.76e-01             3.52e+00
    Hexachlorophene............  3.13e-04             6.26e-03
    Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene....  6.04e-05             1.21e-03
    Isobutyl alcohol...........  6.85e+01             1.37e+03
    Isophorone.................  4.44e+00             8.88e+01
    Methacrylonitrile..........  2.28e-02             4.56e-01
    Methoxychlor...............  1.00e+01             2.00e+02
    Methyl bromide               1.28e+02             2.56e+03
     (Bromomethane).
    Methyl chloride              1.80e-01             3.60e+00
     (Chloromethane).
    Methyl ethyl ketone........  1.37e+02             2.74e+03
    Methyl isobutyl ketone.....  1.83e+01             3.66e+02
    Methyl methacrylate........  1.03e+03             2.06e+04
    Methyl parathion...........  1.27e+02             2.54e+03
    Methylene chloride.........  2.88e-01             5.76e+00
    Naphthalene................  1.50e+00             3.00e+01
    Nitrobenzene...............  1.14e-01             2.28e+00
    Nitrosodiethylamine........  2.81e-05             5.62e-04
    Nitrosodimethylamine.......  8.26e-05             1.65e-03
    Nitrosodi-n-butylamine.....  7.80e-04             1.56e-02
    N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine..  6.02e-04             1.20e-02
    N-Nitrosodiphenylamine.....  8.60e-01             1.72e+01
    N-Nitrosopyrrolidine.......  2.01e-03             4.02e-02
    Pentachlorobenzene.........  1.15e-02             2.30e-01
    Pentachloronitrobenzene      5.00e-03             1.00e-01
     (PCNB).
    Pentachlorophenol..........  4.10e-03             8.20e-02
    Phenanthrene...............  2.09e-01             4.18e+00
    Phenol.....................  1.37e+02             2.74e+03
    Polychlorinated biphenyls..  3.00e-05             6.00e-04
    Pronamide..................  1.71e+01             3.42e+02
    Pyrene.....................  3.96e-01             7.92e+00
    Pyridine...................  2.28e-01             4.56e+00
    Styrene....................  6.08e+00             1.22e+02
    Tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,4,5- 9.43e-03             1.89e-01
     .
    Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-  4.39e-01             8.78e+00
    Tetrachloroethylene........  8.55e-02             1.71e+00
    Tetrachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6-  1.81e+00             3.62e+01
    Tetraethyl                   3.01e+05             6.02e+06
     dithiopyrophosphate
     (Sulfotep).
    Toluene....................  4.57e+01             9.14e+02
    Toxaphene..................  5.00e-01             1.00e+01
    Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-...  7.24e-01             1.45e+01
    Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-....  7.60e+00             1.52e+02
    Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-....  7.80e-02             1.56e+00
    Trichloroethylene..........  3.04e-01             6.08e+00
    Trichlorofluoromethane.....  6.85e+01             1.37e+03
    Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5-....  9.16e+00             1.83e+02
    Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-....  2.76e-01             5.52e+00
    Trichlorophenoxyacetic       2.28e+00             4.56e+01
     acid, 2,4,5-(245-T).
    Trichlorophenoxypropionic    1.00e+00             2.00e+01
     acid, 2,4,5-(Silvex).
    Trichloropropane, 1,2,3-...  7.69e-04             1.54e-02
    Trinitrobenzene, sym-......  6.49e+00             1.30e+02
    Vinyl chloride.............  2.34e-03             4.68e-02
    Xylenes (total)............  3.20e+02             6.40e+03
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 38982]]


 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        (4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If
                                                                         GROWS significantly changes the
                                                                         treatment process or the chemicals used
                                                                         in the treatment process, GROWS may not
                                                                         manage the treatment sludge filter cake
                                                                         generated from the new process under
                                                                         this exclusion until it has met the
                                                                         following conditions: (a) GROWS must
                                                                         demonstrate that the waste meets the
                                                                         delisting levels set forth in Paragraph
                                                                         3; (b) it must demonstrate that no new
                                                                         hazardous constituents listed in
                                                                         Appendix VIII of Part 261 have been
                                                                         introduced into the manufacturing or
                                                                         treatment process: and (c) it must
                                                                         obtain prior written approval from EPA
                                                                         and the Pennsylvania Department of
                                                                         Environmental Protection to manage the
                                                                         waste under this exclusion.
                                                                        (5) Reopener:
                                                                        (a) If GROWS discovers that a condition
                                                                         at the facility or an assumption
                                                                         related to the disposal of the excluded
                                                                         waste that was modeled or predicted in
                                                                         the petition does not occur as modeled
                                                                         or predicted, then GROWS must report
                                                                         any information relevant to that
                                                                         condition, in writing, to the Regional
                                                                         Administrator or his delegate and to
                                                                         the Pennsylvania Department of
                                                                         Environmental Protection within 10 days
                                                                         of discovering that condition.
                                                                        (b) Upon receiving information described
                                                                         in paragraph (a) of this section,
                                                                         regardless of its source, the Regional
                                                                         Administrator or his delegate and the
                                                                         Pennsylvania Department of
                                                                         Environmental Protection will determine
                                                                         whether the reported condition requires
                                                                         further action. Further action may
                                                                         include repealing the exclusion,
                                                                         modifying the exclusion, or other
                                                                         appropriate response necessary to
                                                                         protect human health and the
                                                                         environment.

[FR Doc. 01-18533 Filed 7-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P