[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 38 (Thursday, February 26, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8828-8833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-4252]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW-FRL-7627-2]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ``the Agency'' or ``we'' in this preamble) is 
granting a petition to exclude (or ``delist'') wastewater treatment 
plant sludge from conversion coating on aluminum generated by the 
DaimlerChrysler Corporation Jefferson North Assembly Plant (DCC-JNAP) 
in Detroit, Michigan from the list of hazardous wastes.
    Today's action conditionally excludes the petitioned waste from the 
requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of in a lined 
Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a 
State to manage industrial solid waste. The exclusion was proposed on 
March 7, 2002 as part of an expedited process to evaluate this waste 
under a pilot project developed with the Michigan Department of 
Environmental Quality (MDEQ). The rule also imposes testing conditions 
for waste generated in the future to ensure that this waste continues 
to qualify for delisting.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on February 26, 2004.

ADDRESSES: The RCRA regulatory docket for this final rule, number R5-
MIECOS-01, is located at the U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., 
Chicago, IL 60604, and is available for viewing from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call Judy Kleiman at 
(312) 886-1482 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, contact Judy Kleiman at the address above or at (312) 
886-1482.

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

I. Background
    A. What is a delisting petition?
    B. What regulations allow a waste to be delisted?
II. The Expedited Process for Delisting
    A. Why was the expedited process developed for this waste?
    B. What is the expedited process to delist F019?
III. EPA's Evaluation of This Petition
    A. What information was submitted in support of this petition?
    B. How did EPA evaluate the information submitted?
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Expedited Process
    A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?
    B. Comments received and responses from EPA
V. Final Rule Granting these Petitions
    A. What decision is EPA finalizing?
    B. What are the terms of this exclusion?
    C. When is the delisting effective?
    D. How does this action affect the states?
VI. Regulatory Impact

I. Background

A. What Is a Delisting Petition?

    A delisting petition is a request from a generator to exclude waste 
from the list of hazardous wastes under RCRA regulations. In a 
delisting petition, the petitioner must show that waste generated at a 
particular facility does not meet any of the criteria for which EPA 
listed the waste as set forth in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations 
(40 CFR 261.11) and the background document for the waste. In addition, 
a petitioner must demonstrate that the waste does not exhibit any of 
the hazardous waste characteristics (that is, ignitability,

[[Page 8829]]

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 40 
CFR 260.22, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f) and the background documents for a listed 
waste.)
    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 and to ensure that future generated 
wastes meet the conditions set.

B. What Regulations Allow a Waste To Be Delisted?

    Under 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22, and 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), facilities may 
petition the EPA to remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by 
excluding them from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 
261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, 40 CFR 260.20 allows any person to 
petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 
260 through 266, 268, and 273 of 40 CFR. 40 CFR 260.22 provides a 
generator the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a 
waste on a ``generator specific'' basis from the hazardous waste lists.

II. The Expedited Process for Delisting

A. Why Was the Expedited Process Developed for This Waste?

    Automobile manufacturers are adding aluminum to automobiles, which 
may result in increased fuel economy. However, when aluminum is 
conversion coated in the automobile assembly process, the resulting 
wastewater treatment sludge must be managed as EPA hazardous waste 
F019. A number of automotive assembly plants use a similar 
manufacturing process which generates a similar F019 waste likely to be 
nonhazardous. This similarity of manufacturing processes and the 
resultant wastes provides an opportunity for the automobile industry to 
be more efficient in submitting delisting petitions and EPA in 
evaluating them. Efficiency may be gained and time saved by using a 
standardized approach for gathering, submitting and evaluating data. 
Therefore, EPA, in conjunction with MDEQ, developed a pilot project to 
expedite the delisting process. This approach to making delisting 
determinations for this group of facilities is efficient while still 
being consistent with current laws and regulations and protective of 
human health and the environment.
    By removing regulatory controls under RCRA, EPA is facilitating the 
use of aluminum in cars. EPA believes that incorporating aluminum in 
cars will be advantageous to the environment since lighter cars are 
capable of achieving better fuel economy.

B. What Is the Expedited Process To Delist F019?

    The expedited process to delist F019 is an approach developed 
through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with MDEQ for gathering and 
evaluating data in support of multiple petitions from automobile 
assembly plants. The expedited delisting process is applicable to 
wastes generated by automobile and light truck assembly plants in the 
State of Michigan which use a similar manufacturing process and 
generate similar F019 waste.
    Based on available historical data and other information, the 
expedited process identified 70 constituents which might be of concern 
in the waste and provides that the F019 sludge generated by automobile 
assembly plants may be delisted if the levels of the 70 constituents do 
not exceed the allowable levels established for each constituent in 
this rulemaking. The maximum annual quantity of waste generated by any 
single facility which may be covered by an expedited delisting is 3,000 
cubic yards, but delisting levels were also proposed for smaller 
quantities of 1,000 and 2,000 cubic yards.

III. EPA's Evaluation of This Petition

A. What Information Was Submitted in Support of This Petition?

    DCC-JNAP submitted certification that its process was the same as 
the process described in the MOU with MDEQ. See 67 FR 10341, March 7, 
2002. The facility also submitted an assertion that its waste does not 
meet the criteria for which F019 waste was listed and there are no 
other factors which might cause the waste to be hazardous.
    In the proposed rulemaking, EPA set forth different demonstration 
and verification sampling depending upon whether or not the facility 
was already generating F019 (67 FR 10341, March 7, 2002). At the time 
of the proposed delisting, DCC-JNAP was not yet generating F019 because 
it was not using aluminum in car production. However, by the time it 
conducted demonstration sampling, DCC-JNAP had begun generating F019, 
although production of cars with aluminum was less than 50 units per 
day. Therefore, the demonstration sampling submitted by DCC-JNAP and 
the verification sampling required in today's rule parallels 
demonstration and verification sampling for facilities already 
generating F019. At the time of the demonstration sampling, DCC-JNAP 
was already incorporating aluminum parts and thus generating F019, but 
was producing less than 50 cars per day with aluminum. Although not 
required in today's rule, EPA has requested DCC-JNAP to notify the 
Agency when production of aluminum containing cars reaches 500 units 
per day.
    To support its exclusion demonstration, DCC-JNAP collected six 
samples representing waste generated over six weeks. Each sample was 
analyzed for: (1) Total analyses of the 70 constituents of concern; (2) 
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), SW-846 Method 1311, 
analyses of the 70 constituents of concern; (3) oil and grease; (4) 
leachable metals using the Extraction Procedure for Oily Wastes (OWEP), 
SW-846 Method 1330A, in lieu of Method 1311 if a sample contained more 
than 1% oil and grease; and (5) total constituent analyses for sulfide 
and cyanide; In addition, the pH of each sample was measured and a 
determination was made that the waste was not ignitable, corrosive or 
reactive (see 40 CFR 261.21-261.23). All sampling and analysis were 
done in accordance with the sampling and analysis plan which is an 
appendix to the MOU and is available in the docket for this rule. The 
data submitted included the appropriate QA/QC information as required 
in the sampling and analysis plan and was validated by a third party.
    A few minor changes in the sampling approach were made prior to the 
sampling. Instead of sampling from six different roll-off boxes, which 
would have required multiple sampling events or long-term storage of 
full roll-off boxes, DCC-JNAP collected representative amounts of 
sludge each week from February 17, 2003 through March 30, 2003. The 
sludge for each week was placed in a separate drum. On March 31, 2003, 
composite and grab samples were collected from each drum.
    The maximum values of constituents detected in any sample of the 
waste water treatment plant sludge and in a TCLP extract of that sludge 
are summarized in the following table.

[[Page 8830]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Maximum concentration   Maximum allowable delisting      Maximum
                                                   observed           level  (2,000 cubic yards)     allowable
               Constituent                -------------------------------------------------------   groundwater
                                           Total  (mg/   TCLP  (mg/  Total  (mg/                   concentration
                                               kg)           L)          kg)       TCLP  (mg/L)      ([mu]g/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
acetone..................................         <7.5          2.6           NA             228           3,750
ethylbenzene.............................         <0.5        0.012           NA            42.6             700
formaldehyde.............................          6.2         0.31          689            84.2           1,380
methyl ethyl ketone......................         <2.5         0.11           NA             200          22,600
methylene chloride.......................         <2.5        0.051           NA           0.288               5
n-butyl alcohol..........................         <2.5         0.31           NA             228           3,750
toluene..................................          3.8          0.3           NA            60.8           1,000
xylene...................................          1.9        0.057           NA             608          10,000
------------------------------------------
                                         Semivolatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate..............          8.3       <0.005           NA          0.0896            1.47
o-cresol.................................         <1.5      0.003 J           NA             114           1,875
p-cresol.................................         <1.5         0.17           NA            11.4             188
di-n-octyl phthalate.....................          2.6       <0.002           NA           0.112             1.3
naphthalene..............................       0.10 J     0.0005 J           NA              15             246
------------------------------------------
                                                     Metals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
antimony.................................         0.67        <0.05           NA           0.659             6.0
arsenic..................................         0.25        <0.02        8,140             0.3            4.87
barium...................................          527         0.73           NA             100           2,000
cadmium..................................          2.7       <0.022           NA            0.48             5.0
chromium.................................           50        <0.11           NA            4.95             100
cobalt...................................          3.0       <0.028           NA            72.1           2,250
lead.....................................         30 J        <0.14           NA               5              15
nickel...................................        3,790           38           NA            90.5             750
thallium.................................         0.87        <0.02           NA           0.282             2.0
tin......................................        4,420         58.4           NA             721          22,500
zinc.....................................       14,700         3.84           NA             898          11,300
------------------------------------------
                                                  Miscellaneous
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
corrosivity (pH).........................        6.81 to 7.30
                                                 2 < x < 12.5                 NS
Oil & grease.............................           43,700
                                                      NS                      NS
sulfide..................................          404           NA       See 40 CFR 261.23                  NS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J the numerical value is an estimated quantity
< not detected at the specified concentration
NS not specified
NA not analyzed
B constituent detected in method blank at a concentration greater than 10% of the reported value
These levels represent the highest constituent concentration found in any one sample and do not necessarily
  represent the specific levels found in one sample.

B. How Did EPA Evaluate the Information Submitted?

    EPA compared the analytical results submitted by DCC-JNAP to the 
maximum allowable levels calculated by the DRAS and set forth in the 
proposed rule (67 FR 10341, March 7, 2002). The maximum allowable 
levels for constituents detected in the waste or the waste leachate are 
summarized in the table above, along with the observed levels. All 
constituents compared favorably to the allowable levels.
    The table also includes the maximum allowable levels in groundwater 
at a potential receptor well, as evaluated by the Delisting Risk 
Assessment Software (DRAS). These levels are the more conservative of 
either the Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) or 
the health-based value calculated by DRAS based on the target cancer 
risk level of 10-\6\. For arsenic, the target cancer risk 
was set at 10-\4\ in consideration of the MCL and the 
potential for natural occurrence. The maximum allowable groundwater 
concentration and delisting level for arsenic correspond to a drinking 
water concentration less than one half the current MCL of 10 [mu]g/L.
    EPA also used the DRAS program to estimate the aggregate cancer 
risk and hazard index for constituents detected in the waste. The 
aggregate cancer risk is the cumulative total of all individual 
constituent cancer risks. The hazard index is a similar cumulative 
total of non-cancer effects. The target aggregate cancer risk is 
1x10-\5\ and the target hazard index is one. The waste water 
treatment plant sludge at DCC-JNAP met both of these criteria.

IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion

A. Who Submitted Comments on the Proposed Rule?

    The EPA received public comments on the proposed notice published 
on March 7, 2002 from Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Honda of 
America Mfg., Inc., Alcoa Inc., and The Aluminum Association. All 
commenters were supportive of the proposal, suggesting expanding the 
project and/or revising the listing.

B. Comments Received and Responses From EPA

    (1) Comment: EPA should revise the F019 listing to specify that 
wastewater treatment sludge from zinc phosphating operations is not 
within the scope of the listing. Data gathered as a result of the

[[Page 8831]]

Expedited Delisting Project together with the available historical 
data, should provide enough data to fully characterize this waste and 
to justify a revision of the listing.
    EPA Response: The Agency is now considering revising the F019 
listing. EPA is examining the data collected as a result of this 
project, as well as past data, as a basis for a possible revision to 
the F019 listing.
    (2) Comment: EPA should issue an interpretive rule clarifying that 
zinc phosphating operations are outside the scope of the F019 listing.
    EPA Response: An interpretive rule presents administrative and 
technical difficulties. A revision to the listing will require a 
rulemaking process. See response to comment (1) above.
    (3) Comment: Automobile assembly facilities outside of Michigan 
would like to take advantage of the precedent set by this expedited 
delisting project to delist F019 generated by similar operations in 
other states and regions.
    EPA Response: The Agency believes that the expedited delisting 
procedures and requirements set forth in this proposal are appropriate 
for similar automotive assembly facilities outside the State of 
Michigan, subject to the discretion of the regulatory agency (State or 
region).
    (4) Comment: Alternatives to landfilling like recycling should be 
allowed within the petition process.
    EPA Response: The Agency does not delist wastes which are recycled 
because the model used to estimate risk is based only on disposal of 
waste in a Subtitle D landfill. The risk which might result from any 
other scenario is not evaluated by the delisting program. However, the 
Agency encourages safe recycling, and variances and exclusions from the 
definition of solid and hazardous wastes are available for wastes which 
are recycled.
    (5) Comment: Analytical methods should be specified in the pre-
approved common sampling plan instead of requiring each participant to 
submit a site-specific list of methods.
    EPA Response: Allowing the petitioner to choose an analytical 
method which meets the data quality objectives specific to the 
delisting petition provides flexibility. Data quality objectives will 
vary depending on the allowable levels which are a function of the 
volume of petitioned waste. The Agency believes that the flexibility of 
performance-based methods results in better data.
    (6) Comment: Detection limits should not be required prior to 
sampling since they cannot be adequately predicted without a way to 
estimate matrix effects.
    EPA Response: Although matrix effects cannot be assessed in advance 
of laboratory analysis, a laboratory should be able to provide 
estimated detection levels and reporting levels which are lower than, 
or at least equal to, the allowable delisting level for each 
constituent.
    (7) Comment: Since the process generating the sludge is extremely 
stable, verification sampling should be conducted on an annual, instead 
of quarterly, basis. The requirement that any process change be 
promptly reported and the exclusion suspended until EPA gives written 
approval that the delisting can continue is an adequate safeguard 
justifying the decrease in sample event frequency.
    EPA Response: Verification data submitted in conjunction with past 
delistings of this waste have shown significant variation on a 
quarterly basis over longer periods of time. Annual sampling would not 
detect such variations. Once enough verification data are collected to 
support a statistical analysis, a change in the frequency of 
verification sampling and/or sampling parameters may be considered.
    (8) Comment: The final Federal Register should make it clear that 
assembly plants that manufacture light trucks are also eligible for the 
project.
    EPA Response: Today's notice specifically defines eligible 
facilities as inclusive of manufacturers of light trucks.
    (9) Comment: The table of maximum allowable levels in the March 7, 
2002 proposed rule contains errors in the columns for vinyl chloride.
    EPA Response: The error was caused by a missing space or tab in the 
table. Although vinyl chloride was not detected in the waste at DCC-
JNAP, the maximum allowable concentrations proposed for 1,000 cubic 
yards of waste should have been a total of 178 milligrams per kilogram 
(mg/kg) and 0.00384 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in the TCLP. For 2,000 
cubic yards of waste, 115 mg/kg total and 0.00234 mg/L TCLP were 
proposed. For 3,000 cubic yards of waste, 89.4 mg/kg total and 0.00175 
mg/L TCLP were proposed.

V. Final Rule Granting These Petitions

A. What Decision Is EPA Finalizing?

    Today the EPA is finalizing exclusions to conditionally delist 
2,000 cubic yards annually of wastewater treatment plant sludge from 
conversion coating on aluminum generated at the DCC-JNAP.
    On March 7, 2002, EPA proposed to exclude or delist these 
wastewater treatment sludges from the list of hazardous wastes in 40 
CFR 261.31 and accepted public comment on the proposed rule (67 FR 
10341). EPA considered all comments received, and we believe that these 
wastes should be excluded from hazardous waste control.

B. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion?

    DCC-JNAP must dispose of the waste in a lined Subtitle D landfill 
which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a state to manage 
industrial waste. DCC-JNAP must verify on a quarterly basis that the 
concentrations of the constituents of concern do not exceed the 
allowable levels set forth in this exclusion. In addition, the sum of 
the hazard quotients for nickel and either thallium or cadmium may not 
exceed one.\1\ All facilities participating in the expedited delisting 
project had significant amounts of nickel in the leachate, and nickel 
combines with thallium and with cadmium targeting the liver and 
kidneys, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The proportion of the hazard quotient which may be 
attributed to a constituent can be represented by the ratio of the 
TCLP concentration of that constituent to its allowable delisting 
level. The sum of the hazard quotients for two constituents may thus 
be represented by the sum of these ratios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DCC-JNAP must obtain and analyze a representative sample of the 
waste according to the current waste analysis plan modified to include 
the improved methodologies discussed in section III. A.
    The list of constituents for verification is a subset of those 
initially tested for and is based on the occurrence of constituents at 
the majority of facilities participating in the expedited process to 
delist F019 and the concentrations relative to the allowable levels.
    This exclusion applies only to a maximum annual volume of 2,000 
cubic yards and is effective only if all conditions contained in this 
rule are satisfied.

C. When Is the Delisting Effective?

    This rule is effective [insert date of 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. This rule reduces rather than increases the existing 
requirements and, therefore, is effective immediately upon publication 
under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

[[Page 8832]]

D. How Does This Action Affect the States?

    Today's exclusion is being issued under the federal RCRA delisting 
program. Therefore, only states subject to federal RCRA delisting 
provisions would be affected. This exclusion is not effective in states 
which have received authorization to make their own delisting 
decisions. Also, the exclusion may not be effective in states having a 
dual system that includes federal RCRA requirements and their own 
requirements. EPA allows states to impose their own 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 a participating facility transports the 
petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any state with delisting 
authorization, it must obtain a delisting from that state before it can 
manage the waste as nonhazardous in the state.

VI. Regulatory Impact

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
rule is not of general applicability and therefore is not a regulatory 
action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. 
Because this rule is 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, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because this rule will affect only a 
particular facility, it will not significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, as specified in section 203 of UMRA, or communities of 
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 note) 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.).
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types 
of rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to 
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, 
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or 
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required 
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 
because this is a rule of particular applicability.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).

    Dated: February 12, 2004.
William H. Harris,
Acting Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division.

0
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

0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of Part 261 the following wastestreams are 
added in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:

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

                               Table 1.--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Facility                                 Address                         Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
DaimlerChrysler Corporation...........  Jefferson North Assembly Plant,         Waste water treatment plant
                                         Detroit, Michigan.                      sludge, F019, that is generated
                                                                                 by DaimlerChrysler Corporation
                                                                                 at the Jefferson North Assembly
                                                                                 Plant (DCC-JNAP) at a maximum
                                                                                 annual rate of 2,000 cubic
                                                                                 yards per year. The sludge must
                                                                                 be disposed of in a lined
                                                                                 landfill with leachate
                                                                                 collection, which is licensed,
                                                                                 permitted, or otherwise
                                                                                 authorized to accept the
                                                                                 delisted wastewater treatment
                                                                                 sludge in accordance with 40
                                                                                 CFR part 258. The exclusion
                                                                                 becomes effective as of (insert
                                                                                 final publication date).

[[Page 8833]]

 
                                                                                1. Delisting Levels: (A) The
                                                                                 concentrations in a TCLP
                                                                                 extract of the waste measured
                                                                                 in any sample may not exceed
                                                                                 the following levels (mg/L):
                                                                                 Antimony--0.659; Arsenic--0.3;
                                                                                 Cadmium--0.48; Chromium--4.95;
                                                                                 Lead--5; Nickel--90.5; Selenium-
                                                                                 -1; Thallium--0.282; Tin--721;
                                                                                 Zinc--898; Acetone--228; p-
                                                                                 Cresol--11.4; Formaldehyde--
                                                                                 84.2; and Methylene chloride--
                                                                                 0.288. (B) The total
                                                                                 concentrations measured in any
                                                                                 sample may not exceed the
                                                                                 following levels (mg/kg):
                                                                                 Mercury--8.92; and Formaldehyde-
                                                                                 -689. (C) The sum of the ratios
                                                                                 of the TCLP concentrations to
                                                                                 the delisting levels for nickel
                                                                                 and either thallium or cadmium
                                                                                 shall not exceed 1.0.
                                                                                2. Quarterly Verification
                                                                                 Testing: To verify that the
                                                                                 waste does not exceed the
                                                                                 specified delisting levels, DCC-
                                                                                 JNAP must collect and analyze
                                                                                 one representative sample of
                                                                                 the waste on a quarterly basis.
                                                                                3. Changes in Operating
                                                                                 Conditions: DCC-JNAP must
                                                                                 notify the EPA in writing if
                                                                                 the manufacturing process, the
                                                                                 chemicals used in the
                                                                                 manufacturing process, the
                                                                                 treatment process, or the
                                                                                 chemicals used in the treatment
                                                                                 process significantly change.
                                                                                 DCC-JNAP must handle wastes
                                                                                 generated after the process
                                                                                 change as hazardous until it
                                                                                 has demonstrated that the
                                                                                 wastes continue to meet the
                                                                                 delisting levels and that no
                                                                                 new hazardous constituents
                                                                                 listed in appendix VIII of part
                                                                                 261 have been introduced and it
                                                                                 has received written approval
                                                                                 from EPA.
                                                                                4. Data Submittals: DCC-JNAP
                                                                                 must submit the data obtained
                                                                                 through verification testing or
                                                                                 as required by other conditions
                                                                                 of this rule to both U.S. EPA
                                                                                 Region 5, Waste Management
                                                                                 Branch (DW-8J), 77 W. Jackson
                                                                                 Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604 and
                                                                                 MDEQ, Waste Management
                                                                                 Division, Hazardous Waste
                                                                                 Program Section, at P.O. Box
                                                                                 30241, Lansing, Michigan 48909.
                                                                                 The quarterly verification data
                                                                                 and certification of proper
                                                                                 disposal must be submitted
                                                                                 annually upon the anniversary
                                                                                 of the effective date of this
                                                                                 exclusion. The facility must
                                                                                 compile, summarize, and
                                                                                 maintain on site for a minimum
                                                                                 of five years records of
                                                                                 operating conditions and
                                                                                 analytical data. The facility
                                                                                 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, DCC-JNAP
                                                                                 possesses or is otherwise made
                                                                                 aware of any data (including
                                                                                 but not limited to leachate
                                                                                 data or groundwater monitoring
                                                                                 data) relevant to the delisted
                                                                                 waste indicating that any
                                                                                 constituent is at a level in
                                                                                 the leachate higher than the
                                                                                 specified delisting level, or
                                                                                 is in the groundwater at a
                                                                                 concentration higher than the
                                                                                 maximum allowable groundwater
                                                                                 concentration in paragraph (e),
                                                                                 then DCC-JNAP 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 DCC-JNAP 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 DCC-JNAP with an
                                                                                 opportunity to present
                                                                                 information as to why the
                                                                                 proposed Agency action is not
                                                                                 necessary or to suggest an
                                                                                 alternative action. DCC-JNAP
                                                                                 shall have 30 days from the
                                                                                 date of the Regional
                                                                                 Administrator's notice to
                                                                                 present the information.
                                                                                (d) If after 30 days the
                                                                                 facility 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.
                                                                                (e) Maximum Allowable
                                                                                 Groundwater Concentrations
                                                                                 ([mu]g/L): Antimony--6; Arsenic-
                                                                                 -4.87; Cadmium--5; Chromium--
                                                                                 100; Lead--15; Nickel--750;
                                                                                 Selenium--50; Thallium--2; Tin--
                                                                                 22,500; Zinc--11,300; acetone--
                                                                                 3,750; p-Cresol--188;
                                                                                 Formaldehyde--1,380; and
                                                                                 Methylene chloride--5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 04-4252 Filed 2-25-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P