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

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: February 26, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 38)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8828-8833]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26fe04-16]

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

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 (59 FR 22951,
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.

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 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

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 Final Exclusion

Local Navigation