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: December 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 244)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 76255-76260]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20de06-34]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR PART 261
[EPA-R07-RCRA-2006-0923; FRL-8258-7]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ``the Agency'' or ``we'' in this preamble) is
proposing to grant a petition to exclude or ``delist'' wastewater
treatment sludge from conversion coating on aluminum generated by the
Ford Motor Company (Ford) Kansas City Assembly Plant (KCAP) in
Claycomo, Missouri 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. See 76 FR 10341, March 7,
2002. Based on an evaluation of waste-specific information provided by
Ford, we have tentatively concluded that the petitioned waste from KCAP
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.

[[Page 76256]]

DATES: We will accept public comments on this proposed rule until
February 5, 2007. 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 Carol
Kather, Acting Director, Air, RCRA and Toxics Division, Environmental
Protection Agency Region 7, 901 N. 5th St., Kansas City, Kansas, 66208.
Your request for a hearing must reach EPA by January 4, 2007. The
request must contain the information prescribed in Title 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (40 CFR) 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
RCRA-2006-0923, by one of the following methods:
1. http://www.regulations.gov Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: herstowski.ken@epa.gov
3. Mail: Ken Herstowski, Environmental Protection Agency, RCRA
Corrective Action and Permit Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Ken
Herstowski, Environmental Protection Agency, RCRA Corrective Action and
Permit Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-RCRA-
2006-0923. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket. All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, RCRA Corrective Action and Permits Branch, 901 North
5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas. The hard copy RCRA regulatory docket
for this proposed rule, EPA-R07-RCRA-2006-0923, is available for
viewing from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. The public may copy material from the regulatory docket at
$0.15 per page. EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make
an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further technical information
concerning this document or for appointments to view the docket,
contact Kenneth Herstowski at the Environmental Protection Agency, RCRA
Corrective Action and Permit Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101, by calling 913-551-7631 or by e-mail at
herstowski.ken@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. Ford's Petition To Delist Waste From the Kansas City 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 Ford 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 Kansas City 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

Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA.

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. Ford's Petition To Delist Waste From the Kansas City Assembly Plant

A. How is the petitioned wasted generated?

Ford is petitioning to exclude wastewater treatment sludge
resulting from a conversion coating process on truck bodies which have
aluminum components. The truck bodies are

[[Page 76257]]

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 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. Ford 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 Ford at KCAP 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. Ford
certified that the process generating the filter cake at KCAP 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 Ford 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 KCAP 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 Ford submit in support of its petition?

To support its exclusion demonstration, Ford collected six samples
representing waste generated at KCAP 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 November 1, 2005 and continuing through the
week of December 12, 2005. The sludge for each week was placed in a
separate 55 gallon drum, and on December 19, 2005, composite and grab
samples were collected from all drums. In accordance with the Sampling
and Analysis Plan, each sample was analyzed for: (1) Total volatile
organic compound (VOC) analysis using SW-846 8260B with formaldehyde
analysis using SW-846 8315A, semivolatile organic compound (SVOC)
analysis using SW-846 8270C; (2) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP), Method 1311 in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846) for the inorganic, VOC and
SVOC constituents of concern; (3) oil and grease analysis using SW-846
1664, (4) total metals using SW-846 6010B or 6020 with mercury analysis
using SW-846 7471A; (5) total constituent analysis for sulfide, SW-846
Method 9034 and reactive analysis for sulfide, SW-846 Section 7.3; and
(6) total constituent analysis for cyanide, SW-846 Method 9012A and
reactive analysis for cyanide, SW-846 Section 7.3. 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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum concentration observed Maximum allowable delisting level (2,000 cubic
-------------------------------- yards)
Constituent ---------------------------------------------------
Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/l) Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/l)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barium...................... 220 < 0.05 NA 1.00x10 \2\
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.. 18 0.0036 NA 3.65x10 -\1\
Chromium.................... 40 < 0.18 7.60x10 \5\ 5.00x10 \0\
Cresol, p-.................. 8.2 0.4 NA 1.14x10 \1\
Cyanide..................... 0.86 < 0.05 NA 1.15x10 \1\
Dinitrotoluene, 2,4-........ < 0.001 0.00028 2.29x10 \5\ 1.30x10 -\1\
Ethylbenzene................ 1.6 0.06 NA 4.26x10 \1\
Formaldehyde................ 4.9 0.24 6.88x10 \3\ 3.43x10 \2\
Mercury..................... 0.2 < 0.0007 1.04x10 \1\ 1.55x10 -\1\

[[Page 76258]]

Napthalene.................. < 0.001 0.011 NA 7.28x10 -\1\
Nickel...................... 3000 8.7 NA 9.05x10 \1\
Sulfides.................... 230 NA NA NA
Thallium.................... 21 < 0.02 1.16x10 \5\ 2.82x10 -\1\
Tin......................... 120 3.1 NA 7.21x10 \2\
Toluene..................... < 0.001 0.0025 NA 6.08x10 \1\
Xylenes (total)............. 7.9 0.33 NA 1.89x10 \1\
Zinc........................ 7900 0.74 NA 8.98x10 \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< --Not detected at the specified concentration.
NA--The DRAS program did not calculate a delisting level for this constituent, or the delisting level was higher
than those levels expected to be found in the waste. In the event high levels are discovered later, the
constituent will be evaluated and a delisting level set in accordance with the methodology used to set
delisting levels for the other constituents.
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 KCAP to the
maximum allowable levels calculated by the DRAS for an annual volume of
2,000 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 1x10 -\6\ or the
target hazard quotient of one.
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 wastewater
treatment sludge at KCAP met both of these criteria.

IV. Proposal To Delist Waste From Kansas City Assembly

A. What is EPA proposing?

Today the EPA is proposing to conditionally exclude or delist 2,000
cubic yards annually of wastewater treatment sludge generated at KCAP
from conversion coating on aluminum.

B. What are the terms of this exclusion?

Ford must dispose of the KCAP waste in a lined Subtitle D landfill
which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a state to manage
industrial waste. Ford must verify on a quarterly basis that the
concentrations of the constituents of concern in the KCAP 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 Ford's KCAP
sludge and in wastes generated by the majority of facilities
participating in the expedited process to delist F019. 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. 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): barium--100; chromium--5; mercury--0.155;
nickel--90; thallium--0.282; zinc--898; cyanides--11.5; ethyl benzene--
42.6; toluene--60.8; total xylenes--18.9; bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate--
0.365; p-cresol--11.4; 2,4-dinitrotoluene--0.13; formaldehyde--343; and
napthalene--0.728. The total concentrations in the waste of the
following constituents must not exceed the following levels (mg/kg):
chromium 760000; mercury--10.4; thallium--116000; 2,4-dinitrotoluene--
100000; and formaldehyde--6880.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review''

[[Page 76259]]

(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, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f). Authority for
this action has been delegated to the Regional Administrator (61 FR
32798, June 25, 1996).

Dated: November 16, 2006.
John B. Askew,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Ford Motor Company Kansas City Claycomo, Missouri..... Wastewater treatment sludge, F019, that is
Assembly Plant. generated at the Ford Motor Company (Ford)
Kansas City Assembly Plant (KCAP) 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).
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): barium--100; chromium--5; mercury--0.155;
nickel--90; thallium--0.282; zinc--898;
cyanides--11.5; ethyl benzene--42.6; toluene--
60.8; total xylenes--18.9; bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate--0.365; p-cresol--11.4; 2,4-
dinitrotoluene--0.13; formaldehyde--343; and
napthalene--.728;
(b) The total concentrations measured in any
sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/
kg): chromium 760000; mercury--10.4; thallium--
116000; 2,4-dinitrotoluene--100000; and
formaldehyde--6880.
2. Quarterly Verification Testing: To verify
that the waste does not exceed the specified
delisting levels, Ford must collect and analyze
one representative sample of KCAP's sludge on a
quarterly basis.
3. Changes in Operating Conditions: Ford 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 KCAP significantly change. Ford must handle
wastes generated at KCAP 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 Ford has received written
approval from EPA.

[[Page 76260]]

4. Data Submittals: Ford must submit the data
obtained through verification testing at KCAP
or as required by other conditions of this rule
to EPA Region 7, Air, RCRA and Toxics Division,
901 N. 5th, Kansas City, Kansas, 66208. The
quarterly verification data and certification
of proper disposal must be submitted annually
upon the anniversary of the effective date of
this exclusion. Ford must compile, summarize,
and maintain at KCAP records of operating
conditions and analytical data for a minimum of
five years. Ford 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, Ford 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 KCAP 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 Ford 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 Ford 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 Ford
with an opportunity to present information as
to why the proposed Agency action is not
necessary or to suggest an alternative action.
Ford shall have 30 days from the date of the
Regional Administrator's notice to present the
information.
(d) If after 30 days Ford 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.

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E6-21603 Filed 12-19-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

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

Local Navigation