![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste Proposed Exclusion
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: April 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 78)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 21165-21170]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25ap05-18]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[R5-GMJA-05; SW-FRL-7903-4]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste Proposed Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ``the Agency'' or ``we'' in this preamble) is
proposing to grant a petition to exclude or ``delist'' wastewater
treatment sludge from conversion coating on aluminum generated by the
General Motors Corporation (GM) Janesville Truck Assembly Plant (JTAP)
in Janesville, Wisconsin from the requirements of hazardous waste
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
This proposed exclusion, if finalized, conditionally excludes the
petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations
under RCRA.
This petition was evaluated in a manner similar to the expedited
process developed as a special project in conjunction with the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for delisting similar wastes
generated by a similar manufacturing process. Based on an evaluation of
waste-specific information provided by GM, we have tentatively
concluded that the petitioned waste from JTAP is nonhazardous with
respect to the original listing criteria and that there are no other
factors which would cause the waste to be hazardous. This exclusion, if
finalized, would be valid only when the sludge is disposed of in a
Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a
State to manage industrial solid waste.
DATES: We will accept public comments on this proposed rule until June
9, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Please send two copies of your comments to Judy Kleiman,
Waste Management Branch (DW-8J), Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W.
Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604. We will stamp comments
postmarked after the close of the comment period as ``late.'' These
``late'' comments may not be considered in formulating a final
decision. Any person may request a hearing on this proposed decision by
filing a request with Margaret Guerriero, Director, Waste, Pesticides
and Toxics Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson
Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604. Your request for a hearing must reach
EPA by May 10, 2005. The request must contain the information
prescribed in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) 260.20(d).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RCRA regulatory docket for this
proposed rule, number R5-GMJA-04, is located at 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. The
public may copy material from the regulatory docket at $0.15 per page.
For further technical information concerning this document or for
appointments to view the docket, contact Judy Kleiman at the address
above, by calling 312-886-1482 or by e-mail at kleiman.judy@epa.gov.
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. GM's Petition to Delist Waste from Janesville Truck Assembly Plant
A. How is the petitioned waste generated?
B. What is the process for delisting F019 from zinc phosphating
operations at automobile and light truck assembly plants?
C. What information did GM submit in support of its petition?
III. EPA's Evaluation of This Petition
A. How did EPA evaluate the information submitted?
B. What did EPA conclude about this waste?
IV. Proposal to Delist Waste from Janesville Truck Assembly Plant
A. What is EPA proposing?
B. What are the terms of this exclusion?
C. What are the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the waste?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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 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, 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 United States Code (U.S.C.)
6921(f) and the background document for a listed waste.)
A generator remains obligated under RCRA to confirm that its waste
remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics even
if EPA has ``delisted'' the waste and to ensure that future generated
waste meets 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), a facility may
petition the EPA to remove its waste 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.
II. GM's Petition To Delist Waste From Janesville Truck Assembly Plant
A. How Is the Petitioned Wasted Generated?
GM is petitioning to exclude wastewater treatment sludge resulting
from a conversion coating process on truck bodies which have aluminum
components. The truck bodies are immersed in a zinc phosphate bath
which applies a conversion coating on the surface of the metal. The
rinses and overflows from the conversion coating process comingle with
wastewaters from cleaning and rinsing operations which may include
alkaline cleaners, surfactants, organic detergents and rinse
conditioners. After the zinc phosphating bath, the truck bodies are
subjected to an electrocoating process and spray painting. Overflows
and rinse water from the electrocoating process and from the paint
booths combine with the wastewater from the conversion coating before
entering the wastewater treatment plant. When treated, the wastewater
from the conversion coating on aluminum causes all the sludge generated
from these wastewaters to be a listed waste, F019.
In the wastewater treatment plant, large particles are screened out
and the wastewater is sent to various thickeners
[[Page 21166]]
and clarifier tanks where water and solids are further separated. The
pH of the wastewater may be adjusted and flocculents and coagulants may
be added to facilitate the thickening process. The solids which settle
in the thickeners and clarifiers are dewatered in a filter press and
the resultant F019 filter cake drops into a roll off box for disposal.
The zinc phosphating process used today does not contain hexavalent
chromium or cyanide for which F019 was originally listed, but trivalent
chromium, nickel, and zinc may be present in the wastewater and in the
sludge. Other hazardous constituents such as organic solvents,
formaldehyde or additional metals could also be in the waste stream.
Before a waste can be delisted, the petitioner must demonstrate that
there are no hazardous constituents in the sludge from other operations
in the plant at levels of concern and that there are no other factors
that might cause the waste to be hazardous. GM believes that its sludge
does not contain the constituents for which F019 was listed and that
there are no other constituents or factors that would cause the waste
to remain hazardous.
B. What Is the Process for Delisting F019 From Zinc Phospating
Operations At Automobile and Light Truck Assembly Plants?
The zinc phosphating process used by GM at JTAP is substantially
similar to the process used at most automobile and light truck assembly
plants in conversion coating steel and aluminum. A number of automobile
and light truck assembly plants have been granted hazardous waste
exclusions as a result of a special expedited delisting project
established in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA Region 5
and MDEQ (67 FR 10341, March 7, 2002 and 68 FR 44652, July 30, 2003).
These facilities were able to take advantage of a common sampling
approach and expedited rulemaking procedure mainly due to the
similarity of the wastes and processes generating the waste. GM
certified that the process generating the filter cake at JTAP is
consistent with the process described in the MOU for expedited delistings.
Using available historical data and other information, the
expedited process identified 70 constituents which might be of concern
in the F019 waste generated at automobile and light truck assembly
plants, and a Sampling and Analysis Plan was developed specifically for
testing this waste. EPA agreed to allow GM to use the same Sampling and
Analysis Plan and the same list of constituents of concern to
demonstrate that the levels of constituents in the waste at JTAP are
below the levels of concern that could pose a threat to human health or
the environment when the waste is disposed in a nonhazardous landfill.
C. What Information Did GM Submit in Support of Its Petition?
To support its exclusion demonstration, GM collected six samples
representing waste generated at JTAP over six weeks. All sampling was
done in accordance with the Sampling and Analysis Plan developed for
the expedited delisting project but modified to eliminate multiple
sampling events or long term storage of full roll-off boxes. A
representative amount of sludge was collected each week for six weeks
starting with the week of March 15, 2004 and continuing through the
week of April 19, 2004. The sludge for each week was placed in a
separate 55 gallon drum, and on April 27, 2004, composite and grab
samples were collected from all drums. In accordance with the Sampling
and Analysis Plan, each sample was analyzed for: (1) Total analyses of
69 constituents of concern; \1\ (2) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP), Method 1311 in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846) for the volatile and
semivolatile constituents of concern; (3) oil and grease, SW-846 Method
9071B; (4) leachable metals using the Extraction Procedure for Oily
Wastes (OWEP), SW-846 Method 1330A; (5) total constituent analysis for
sulfide, SW-846 Method 9034; and (6) total constituent analysis for
cyanide, SW-846 Method 9012A. In addition, the pH of each sample was
measured using SW-846 Method 9045C and a determination was made that
the waste was not ignitable, corrosive or reactive (see 40 CFR 261.21-
261.23). The data submitted included the appropriate quality assurance/
quality control information and was validated by an independent third
party as required in the Sampling and Analysis Plan. The maximum values
of constituents detected in any sample of the wastewater treatment
sludge or in a TCLP extract of that sludge are summarized in the table
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The expedited delisting project originally called for the
analysis of 70 constituents. However, the analysis of acrylamide
required extreme methods to achieve a detection level at the level
of concern. Despite the use of single ion monitoring, no acrylamide
was detected in any sample analyzed by any of the original
facilities participating in the expedited delisting project.
Consequently, the Agency decided it would not be appropriate to
require analysis for acrylamide.
\2\ The allowable TCLP concentrations from the groundwater
inhalation exposure pathway have been changed to account for the
cumulative groundwater inhalation exposure from all residential
inhalation exposures (shower, bathroom, and whole-house). Previous
calculations of allowable levels were based on only the most
conservative of these three. This change in the calculation results
in a more conservative allowable limit for TCLP concentration of
formaldehyde.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum concentration observed Maximum allowable delisting Maximum
-------------------------------- level (3,000 cubic yards) allowable
Constituent -------------------------------- groundwater
Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L) concentration
Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L) (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
acetone......................... < 10 0.33 NA 1,500 34
formaldehyde.................... 2.4 0.12 540 43 \2\ 0.950
n-butyl alcohol................. 25 0.2 NA 171 3.7
---------------------------------
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
p-cresol........................ 2.6 0.28 NA 8.5 0.190
bis (2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate.... 1.7 < 0.005 890,000 0.15 0.0032
2,4-dimethylphenol.............. < 3.0 0.007 NA 34 0.750
naphthalene..................... < 1.5 0.0046 NA 0.55 0.012
---------------------------------
[[Page 21167]]
Metals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
arsenic......................... < 50 0.045 8,000 0.22 0.005
barium.......................... 210 < .35 NA 100 2
cadmium......................... 1.6 < 0.023 22,000 0.36 0.005
chromium........................ 75 < 0.12 3,200 3.7 0.100
cobalt.......................... 4.3 < 0.029 14,000 18 0.750
lead............................ 214 < 0.15 500,000 5 0.015
nickel.......................... 1,180 7.99 NA 68 0.750
tin............................. < 100 2.02 NA 540 23
zinc............................ 7,320 0.36 NA 670 11
---------------------------------
Miscellaneous
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cyanide......................... 0.7 < 0.05 NA 8.6 0.2
---------------------------------
corrosivity (pH)................ 7.8-8.19
2.0 < ph < 12.5 NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< Not detected at the specified concentration.
NA not applicable.
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram.
mg/L milligrams per liter.
These levels represent the highest constituent concentration found in any one sample and do not necessarily
represent the specific levels found in a single sample.
III. EPA's Evaluation of This Petition
A. How Did EPA Evaluate the Information Submitted?
In developing this proposal, we considered the original listing
criteria and evaluated additional factors required by the Hazardous and
Solid Wastes Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section 222 of HSWA, 42
U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(2)-(4). We evaluated the
petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in 40
CFR 261.11(a)(2) and (3). These factors include: (1) Whether the waste
is considered acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity of the constituents; (3)
the concentration of the constituents in the waste; (4) the tendency of
the hazardous constituents to migrate and to bioaccumulate; (5)
persistence of these constituents in the environment once released from
the waste; (6) plausible and specific types of management of the
petitioned waste; (7) the quantity of waste produced; and (8) waste
variability.
EPA identified plausible exposure routes (ground water, surface
water, air) for hazardous constituents released from the waste in an
improperly managed Subtitle D landfill. To evaluate the waste, we used
the Delisting Risk Assessment Software program (DRAS), a Windows based
software tool, to estimate the potential release of hazardous
constituents from the waste and to predict the risk associated with
those releases. For a detailed description of the DRAS program and
revisions see: 65 FR 58015, September 27, 2000; 65 FR 75637, December
4, 2000; 65 FR 75897, December 5, 2000; and 67 FR 10341, March 7, 2002.
B. What Did EPA Conclude About This Waste?
EPA compared the analytical results submitted by JTAP to the
maximum allowable levels calculated by the DRAS for an annual volume of
3,000 cubic yards. The maximum allowable levels for constituents
detected in the waste or the waste leachate are summarized in the table
above. 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 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\ or the
target hazard quotient of one. 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 0.010 mg/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 1 x
10-\5\ and the target hazard index is one. The wastewater
treatment sludge at JTAP met both of these criteria.
IV. Proposal To Delist Waste From Janesville Truck Assembly
A. What Is EPA Proposing?
Today the EPA is proposing to conditionally exclude or delist 3,000
cubic yards annually of wastewater treatment sludge generated at JTAP
from conversion coating on aluminum.
B. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion?
GM must dispose of the JTAP waste in a lined Subtitle D landfill
which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a state to manage
industrial waste. This exclusion applies only to a maximum annual
volume of 3,000 cubic yards and is effective only if all conditions
contained in this rule are satisfied. GM must verify on a quarterly
basis that the concentrations of the constituents of concern in the
JTAP sludge do not exceed the allowable levels set forth in this
exclusion. The list of constituents for verification is based on the
concentration and frequency of occurrence of constituents of concern in
GM's JTAP sludge and in wastes generated by the majority of facilities
participating in the expedited process to delist F019.
[[Page 21168]]
C. What Are the Maximum Allowable Concentrations of Hazardous
Constituents in the Waste?
Concentrations of the following constituents measured in the TCLP
(or OWEP, where appropriate) extract of the waste must not exceed the
following levels (mg/L): antimony--0.49; arsenic--0.22; cadmium--0.36;
chromium--3.7; lead--5; nickel--68; selenium--1; thallium--0.21; tin--
540; zinc--670; p-cresol--8.5; and formaldehyde--43. The total
concentrations in the waste of the following constituents must not
exceed the following levels (mg/kg): formaldehyde--540; chromium--
3,200; and mercury--7.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB
review and the requirements of the Executive Order. It has been
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and therefore is not a
regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).
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.) because it applies to a particular facility only.
Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a
particular facility and does not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities, it is not subject to the
regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
This rule is not subject to sections 202, 203, 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. Therefore, EPA has
determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one
year.
Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this
final rule does not have federalism implications. It 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, ``Federalism,'' (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule. Similarly, because this rule will affect only a particular
facility, this final rule does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045,
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency
does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. The basis for this belief is that the Agency used the DRAS
program, which considers health and safety risks to infants and
children, to calculate the maximum allowable concentrations for this rule.
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.
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, ``Civil Justice
Reform,'' (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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: April 14, 2005.
Bruce Sypniewski,
Acting Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of part 261 the following wastestream
is 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
General Motors Corporation Janesville, Wastewater treatment
Janesville Truck Assembly. Wisconsin. sludge, F019, that
is generated at the
General Motors
Corporation (GM)
Janesville Truck
Assembly Plant
(JTAP) at a maximum
annual rate of 3,000
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 21169]]
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--0.49;
arsenic--0.22;
cadmium--0.36;
chromium--3.7; lead--
5; nickel--68;
seleium--1;
thallium--0.21; tin--
540; zinc--670; p-
cresol--8.5; and
formaldehyde--43;.
(B) The total
concentrations
measured in any
sample may not
exceed the following
levels (mg/kg):
chromium--3,200;
mercury--7; and
formaldehyde--540.
2. Quarterly
Verification
Testing: To verify
that the waste does
not exceed the
specified delisting
levels, GM must
collect and analyze
one representative
sample of JTAP's
sludge on a
quarterly basis.
3. Changes in
Operating
Conditions: GM 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 at
JTAP significantly
change. GM must
handle wastes
generated at JTAP
after the process
change as hazardous
until it has
demonstrated that
the waste continues
to meet the
delisting levels and
that no new
hazardous
constituents listed
in appendix VIII of
part 261 have been
introduced and GM
has received written
approval from EPA.
4. Data Submittals:
GM must submit the
data obtained
through verification
testing at JTAP or
as required by other
conditions of this
rule to EPA Region
5, Waste Management
Branch (DW-8J), 77
W. Jackson Blvd.,
Chicago, IL 60604.
The quarterly
verification data
and certification of
proper disposal must
be submitted
annually upon the
anniversary of the
effective date of
this exclusion. GM
must compile,
summarize, and
maintain at JTAP
records of operating
conditions and
analytical data for
a minimum of five
years. GM must make
these records
available for
inspection. All data
must be accompanied
by a signed copy of
the certification
statement in 40 CFR
260.22(i)(12).
5. Reopener Language--
(a) If, anytime
after disposal of
the delisted waste,
GM possesses or is
otherwise made aware
of any data
(including but not
limited to leachate
data or groundwater
monitoring data)
relevant to the
delisted waste at
JTAP 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
GM must report such
data in writing to
the Regional
Administrator within
10 days of first
possessing or being
made aware of that
data.
(b) Based on the
information
described in
paragraph (a) and
any other
information received
from any source, the
Regional
Administrator will
make a preliminary
determination as to
whether the reported
information requires
Agency action to
protect human health
or the environment.
Further action may
include suspending,
or revoking the
exclusion, or other
appropriate response
necessary to protect
human health and the
environment.
(c) If the Regional
Administrator
determines that the
reported information
does require Agency
action, the Regional
Administrator will
notify GM in writing
of the actions the
Regional
Administrator
believes are
necessary to protect
human health and the
environment. The
notice shall include
a statement of the
proposed action and
a statement
providing GM with an
opportunity to
present information
as to why the
proposed Agency
action is not
necessary or to
suggest an
alternative action.
GM shall have 30
days from the date
of the Regional
Administrator's
notice to present
the information.
(d) If after 30 days
GM presents no
further information,
the Regional
Administrator will
issue a final
written
determination
describing the
Agency actions that
are necessary to
protect human health
or the environment.
Any required action
described in the
Regional
Administrator's
determination shall
become effective
immediately, unless
the Regional
Administrator
provides otherwise.
(e) Maximum Allowable
Groundwater
Concentrations (mg/
L):; antimony--
0.006; arsenic--
0.005; cadmium--
0.005; chromium--
0.1; lead--0.015;
nickel--0.750;
selenium--0.050;
tin--23; zinc--11; p-
Cresol--0.190; and
formaldehyde--0.950.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 21170]]
[FR Doc. 05-8190 Filed 4-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P