![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
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: April 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 78)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21153-21159]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25ap05-12]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[R5-MIECOS-01; SW-FRL-7902-9]
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 Ford
Motor Company Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant (DTP) in Dearborn, 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.
DATES: This rule is effective on April 25, 2005.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. R5-MIECOS-01. All documents in the docket are listed in the index.
Publicly available docket materials are available in hard copy at the
U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604. This Docket
Facility is open 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. Contact Judy Kleiman for
appointments at the address above, by email at kleiman.judy@epa.gov or
by calling (312) 886-1482.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning
this document, contact Judy Kleiman, Waste, Pesticides, and Toxics
Division, (Mail Code: DW-8J), U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd.,
Chicago, IL 60604; telephone number: (312) 886-1482; fax number: (312)
353-4788; e-mail address: kleiman.judy@epa.gov.
[[Page 21154]]
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?
C. What waste did DTP petition to delist?
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. 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 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, 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 from the lists of hazardous wastes on a ``generator specific'' basis.
C. What Waste Did DTP Petition To Delist?
DTP petitioned to exclude wastewater treatment sludge resulting
from a zinc phosphating conversion coating process on truck bodies
which have aluminum components. When treated, the wastewater from the
conversion coating on aluminum results in a listed waste, F019. The
wastewater from the phosphating process entering the wastewater
treatment plant combines with wastewaters from other operations at the
plant including cleaning and rinsing operations, electrocoating
processes, vehicle leak testing, and floor scrubbing. Wastewaters
include alkaline cleaners, surfactants, organic detergents, rinse
conditioners from cleaning operations and overflows and rinse water
from electrocoating. All sludge from the treatment of this wastewater
is regulated as RCRA hazardous waste F019.
II. The Expedited Process for Delisting
A. Why Was the Expedited Process Developed for This Waste?
Automobile manufacturers are adding aluminum components to
automobile and light truck bodies. When aluminum is conversion coated
in a zinc phosphating process in automobile assembly plants, the
resulting wastewater treatment sludge must be managed as EPA hazardous
waste F019. F019 wastes generated at other auto assembly plants using
the same zinc phosphating and wastewater treatment processes have been
shown 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 for EPA to be more
efficient 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. 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?
DTP submitted certification that its process was the same as the
process described in the MOU between Region 5 and MDEQ. See 67 FR
10341, March 7, 2002. The facility also asserted 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.
To support its exclusion demonstration, Ford Dearborn collected six
samples representing waste generated over a seven week period.\1\ Each
sample was analyzed for: (1) Total analyses of 69 \2\ constituents of
concern;
[[Page 21155]]
(2) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), SW-846 Method
1311, analyses of 69 constituents of concern; (3) oil and grease; and
(4) 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). With the exception of the minor change noted here, all
sampling and analyses 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. Instead of sampling directly from six different
roll-off boxes which would have required multiple sampling events or
long-term storage of full roll-off boxes, DTP collected representative
amounts of sludge each week from June 8 through July 27, 2004. The
sludge for each week was placed in a separate drum. On July 27, 2004,
composite and grab samples were collected from each of the six drums.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Because the plant was shut down from July 4-11, 2004, the
time necessary to collect 6 samples was extended to 7 weeks.
\2\ The expedited delisting project originally required analysis
of 70 constituents. However, the analysis of acrylamide required
extreme methods to achieve a detection level at the level of
concern. Since no acrylamide was detected in any sample analyzed by
the original facilities participating in the expedited delisting
project, the Agency decided it would not be appropriate to require
analysis for acrylamide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maximum values of constituents detected in any sample of the
waste and in a TCLP extract of that waste are summarized in the
following table. The data submitted included the appropriate QA/QC
information validated by a third party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In the proposed rule, the allowable level for TCLP PCP was
set at 0.004 mg/L for participants generating 2,000 cubic yards
annually. This value was based on child-dermal exposure to
contaminated groundwater, but the model was found to overestimate
this exposure by using an inappropriate exposure duration. This
error in the software has since been corrected. Using the correct
exposure factors, the limiting pathway is adult-dermal exposure to
contaminated groundwater with an allowable level of 0.009 mg/L.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum observed concentration Maximum allowable
--------------------------------- concentration
Constituent detected -------------------------------- GW (ug/L)
Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L) Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
formaldehyde.................. 13 0.64 700 80 1,400
n-butyl alcohol............... < 26 R < 0.5 R NA 230 4,000
toluene....................... < 0.5 0.0021 NA 60 1,000
-------------------------------
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate... 1.9 < 0.005 NA 0.09 1.5
p-cresol...................... < 1.5 0.042 NA 11 200
di-n-octylphthalate........... 1.9 0.003 NA 0.11 1.3
pentachlorophenol............. < 1.5 0.0045 3,000 \3\ 0.009 0.15
-------------------------------
Metals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
arsenic....................... < 50 < 0.02 8,000 0.3 5
barium........................ 1700 1.02 NA 100 2,000
chromium...................... 49 < 0.05 NA 5 100
cobalt........................ 1.7 0.03 NA 70 2,000
lead.......................... 36 < 0.1 NA 5 15
nickel........................ 2610 38.9 NA 90 800
silver........................ 288 < 0.05 NA 5 200
tin........................... 292 < 0.5 NA 700 20,000
vanadium...................... 226 0.02 NA 70 300
zinc.......................... 14,200 27.4 NA 900 11,000
-------------------------------
Miscellaneous
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
corrosivity (pH)..............
2 < x < 12.5 NA
Oil & grease.................. 8020
NA NA
sulfide....................... 36
See 40 CFR 261.23 NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-- The numerical value is not useable.
< -- Not detected at the specified concentration.
NA--not applicable.
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 DTP 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 a TCLP extract of the waste are
summarized in the table above, along with the observed 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
[[Page 21156]]
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 plant sludge at DTP 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 and suggested expanding the
project and 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
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. The maximum allowable concentrations proposed for 2,000 cubic
yards of waste should have been 115 mg/kg total and 0.00234 mg/L TCLP.
V. Final Rule Granting These Petitions
A. What Decision Is EPA Finalizing?
Today the EPA is finalizing an exclusion to conditionally delist an
annual volume of 2,000 cubic yards of wastewater treatment plant sludge
generated at DTP from conversion coating on aluminum.
On March 7, 2002, EPA proposed to exclude or delist this wastewater
treatment sludge 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 this waste should
be excluded from hazardous waste control.
B. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion?
DTP must dispose of the waste in a lined subtitle D landfill which
is permitted, licensed, or registered by a state to manage industrial
solid waste. DTP must obtain and analyze on a quarterly basis a
representative sample of the waste in accordance with the waste
analysis plan. DTP must verify that the concentrations of the
constituents of concern do not exceed the allowable levels set forth in
this exclusion. 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 detected
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 April 25, 2005. 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 21157]]
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. 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. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review''
(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 (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, 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.
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.
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: 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 wastestreams are
added in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
[[Page 21158]]
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, Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant.......... Dearborn, Michigan....................... Wastewater treatment plant sludge, F019, that is
generated by Ford Motor Company at the Dearborn
Truck Asembly Plant 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 April 25, 2005.
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--0.7; arsenic--0.3; barium--100;
cadmium--0.5; chromium--5; lead--5; nickel--90;
selenium--1; thallium--0.3; zinc--900; p-
cresol--11; di-n-octyl phthlate--0.11;
formaldehyde--80; and pentachlorophenol--0.009.
(B) The total concentration measured in any
sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/
kg): mercury--9; and formaldehyde--700.
2. Quarterly Verification Testing: To verify
that the waste does not exceed the specified
delisting levels, Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant
must collect and analyze one representative
sample of the waste on a quarterly basis.
3. Changes in Operating Conditions: Dearborn
Truck Assembly Plant 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 change significantly.
Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant 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: Dearborn Truck Assembly
Plant [Redln Off]
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. Dearborn
Truck Assembly Plant must compile, summarize
and maintain on site for a minimum of five
years records of operating conditions and
analytical data. Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant
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, Dearborn Truck
Assembly Plant 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 Dearborn
Truck Assembly Plant 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.
[[Page 21159]]
(c) If the Regional Administrator determines
that the reported information does require
Agency action, the Regional Administrator will
notify Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant 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 Dearborn Truck Assembly
Plant with an opportunity to present
information as to why the proposed Agency
action is not necessary or to suggest an
alternative action. Dearborn Truck Assembly
Plant shall have 30 days from the date of the
Regional Administrator's notice to present the
information.
(d) If after 30 days the Dearborn Truck Assembly
Plant 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--5; barium--
2,000; cadmium--5; chromium--100; lead--15;
nickel--800; selenium--50; thallium--2; tin--
20,000; zinc--11,000; p-Cresol--200; Di-n-octyl
phthlate--1.3; Formaldehyde--1,400; and
Pentachlorophenol--0.15.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-8189 Filed 4-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P