![[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: January 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 1)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43-49]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03ja07-12]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-8264-7]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a petition
submitted by General Motors Corporation-Arlington Truck Assembly Plant
(GM-Arlington) to exclude (or delist) a wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) sludge generated by GM-Arlington in Arlington, TX from the lists
of hazardous wastes. This final rule responds to the petition submitted
by GM-Arlington to delist F019 WWTP sludge generated from the
facility's waste water treatment plant.
After careful analysis and use of the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS), EPA has concluded the petitioned waste is not
hazardous waste. This exclusion applies to 3,000 cubic yards per year
of the F019 WWTP sludge. Accordingly, this final rule excludes the
petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when it is
disposed in a Subtitle D Landfill.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 2007.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this final rule is located at the
Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202, and is available for viewing in EPA Freedom of Information
Act review room on the 7th floor from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for
appointments. The reference number for this docket is ``F-05-TXDEL-GM-
Arlington.''. The public may copy material from any regulatory docket
at no cost for the first 100 pages and at a cost of $0.15 per page for
additional copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Banipal, Section Chief of the
Corrective Action and Waste Minimization Section, Multimedia Planning
and Permitting Division (6PD-C), Environmental Protection Agency Region
6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. For technical information
concerning this notice, contact Youngmoo Kim, Environmental Protection
Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, (6PD-C), Dallas, Texas 75202, at
(214) 665-6788, or kim.youngmoo@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA finalizing?
B. Why is EPA approving this action?
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
D. How will GM-Arlington manage the waste if it is delisted?
E. When is the final delisting exclusion effective?
F. How does this final rule affect states?
II. Background
A. What is a delisting?
B. What regulations allow facilities to delist a waste?
C. What information must the generator supply?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What waste did GM-Arlington petition EPA to delist?
B. How much waste did GM-Arlington propose to delist?
C. How did GM-Arlington sample and analyze the waste data in
this petition?
IV. Public Comments Received on the proposed exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?
B. What were the comments and what are EPA's responses to them?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA finalizing?
After evaluating the petition, EPA proposed, on July 19, 2005, to
exclude the waste water treatment plant sludge from the lists of
hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32 (see 70 FR 41358). EPA
is finalizing the decision to grant GM-Arlington's delisting petition
to have its waste water treatment sludge managed and disposed as non-
hazardous waste provided certain verification and monitoring conditions
are met.
B. Why is EPA approving this action?
GM-Arlington's petition requests a delisting from the F019 waste
listing under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. GM-Arlington does not believe
that the petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA listed it.
GM-Arlington also believes no additional constituents or factors could
cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA's review of this petition included
consideration of the original listing criteria and the additional
factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.
See section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22
(d)(1)-(4) (hereinafter all sectional references are to 40 CFR unless
otherwise indicated). In making the final delisting determination, EPA
evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors
cited in Sec. 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, EPA
agrees with the petitioner that the waste is nonhazardous with respect
to the original listing criteria. If EPA had found, based on this
review, that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for
which the waste as originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny
the petition. EPA evaluated the waste with respect to other factors or
criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that
such additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA
considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the concentration of the
constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to
bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from
the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned
waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste variability. EPA
believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the listing criteria
and thus should not be a listed waste. EPA's final decision to delist
waste from GM-Arlington's facility is based on the information
submitted in support of this rule, including descriptions of the wastes
and analytical data from the Arlington, Texas facility.
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
This exclusion applies to the waste described in the petition only
if the requirements described in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix IX, Table 1
and the conditions contained herein are satisfied.
D. How will GM-Arlington manage the waste if it is delisted?
The WWTP sludge from GM-Arlington will be disposed of in a RCRA
Subtitle D landfill.
E. When is the final delisting exclusion effective?
This rule is effective January 3, 2007. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended Section 3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6930(b)(1), allows rules to become effective less than six months after
the rule is published when the regulated community does not need the
six-month period to come into compliance. That is the case here because
this rule reduces, rather than increases, the existing requirements for
persons generating hazardous waste. This reduction in existing
requirements also provides a
[[Page 44]]
basis for making this rule effective immediately, upon publication,
under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
F. How does this final rule affect states?
Because EPA is issuing this exclusion under the Federal RCRA
delisting program, only states subject to Federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This would exclude states which have
received authorization from EPA to make their own delisting decisions.
EPA allows states to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory
requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929. 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, EPA urges petitioners to contact the State regulatory authority
to establish the status of their wastes under the State law.
EPA has also authorized some states (for example, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, Georgia, and Illinois) to administer a RCRA 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 unless that state makes the rule part of its authorized program.
If GM-Arlington transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste
in any state with delisting authorization, GM-Arlington must obtain
delisting authorization from that state before it can manage the waste
as nonhazardous in the state.
II. Background
A. What is a delisting petition?
A delisting petition is a request from a generator to EPA, or
another agency with jurisdiction, to exclude or delist from the RCRA
list of hazardous waste, certain wastes the generator believes should
not be considered hazardous under RCRA.
B. What regulations allow facilities to delist a waste?
Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition EPA to
remove their wastes from hazardous waste regulation by excluding them
from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Sec. Sec. 261.31 and
261.32. Specifically, Sec. 260.20 allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of 40 CFR Parts 260
through 265 and 268. Section 260.22 provides generators the opportunity
to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste from a particular
generating facility from the hazardous waste lists.
C. What information must the generator supply?
Petitioners must provide sufficient information to EPA to allow EPA
to determine that the waste to be excluded does not meet any of the
criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In
addition, the Administrator must determine, where he/she has a
reasonable basis to believe that factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed could
cause the waste to be a hazardous waste and that such factors do not
warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What waste did GM-Arlington petition EPA to delist?
On September 14, 2004, GM-Arlington petitioned EPA to exclude from
the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Sec. Sec. 261.31, WWTP
sludge (F019) generated from its facility located in Arlington, Texas.
The waste falls under the classification of listed waste pursuant to
Sec. 261.31.
B. How much waste did GM-Arlington propose to delist?
Specifically, in its petition, GM-Arlington requested that EPA
grant a standard exclusion for 3,000 cubic yards per year of the WWTP
sludge.
C. How did GM-Arlington sample and analyze the waste data in this petition?
To support its petition, GM-Arlington submitted:
(1) Historical information on waste generation and management practices;
(2) background information and Memorandum of Understanding for the
Michigan ECOS project;
(3) analytical results from six samples for total concentrations of
COCs; and
(4) analytical results from six samples for Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure(TCLP) extract values.
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?
Comments were submitted by General Motors Worldwide Facilities
Group Environmental Services to correct information contained in the
proposed rule and comments in support of granting the petition were
submitted by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
B. What were the comments and what are EPA's responses to them?
1. Waste Disposal in Subtitle D Landfill and Other Authorized States
Comment: GM requests that EPA clarify that GM, at its discretion,
has the option to dispose of the waste in any Subtitle D landfill and
is not bound to use the site Waste Management landfill. GM also
requests that EPA clarify that an authorized state may accept EPA's
decision or make their own determinations based upon their own review
process. This comment was also supported by the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers.
Response: EPA does not limit the disposal of the F019 to a specific
Subtitle D landfill. EPA states, in the exclusion language on page
41366 of the proposed rule in Table 1, (2)(B), that GM-Arlington can
manage and dispose of the nonhazardous WWTP sludge according to all
applicable solid waste regulations. GM provided in its petition
specific reference to the Waste Management, East Oak Landfill, 3201
Mostley Road, Oklahoma City, OK 73141 as a disposal site for this
waste. Since this disposal site is cited in the GM delisting petition
and Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) is authorized
for delisting, GM should consult with ODEQ regarding waste disposal and
meet ODEQ requirements. EPA's delisting authority does not apply in
Oklahoma. If GM decides to dispose the waste in another Subtitle D
landfill in a state not authorized for delisting, GM must notify EPA by
a letter regarding the disposal site which meets all applicable
Subtitle D solid waste regulations in accordance with the notification
requirements in paragraph (7) of the exclusion.
2. Acrylamide
Comment: In Section III B. of the preamble, EPA states ``Acrylamide
was a major compound of concern for other nationwide GM plants'
petitions * * *'' GM requests that EPA qualify this statement to
accurately reflect that the issues previously experienced regarding
acrylamide were due to complex modeling and analytical issues and not
tangible environmental issues.
Response: Acrylamide is not a compound of concern (COC) for the
waste at GM-Arlington, because it is not detected in the waste.
3. Corrections
Multiple pH Testing
Comment: EPA incorrectly states that Multiple pH testing was
performed on the waste.
[[Page 45]]
Response: Multiple pH is incorrectly stated in Section III C.(5) of
the preamble. No multiple pH testing was performed.
Table 1 Correction
Comment: GM requests that EPA revise Table 1, Analytical Results/
Maximum Allowable Concentrations to correct an error; tetracholoethane
to tetrachloroethylene.
Response: We acknowledge the typographical error of
tetrachoroethylene. However, EPA does not republish supporting tables
from the proposed rule. Tetrachloroethylene will not be included in
Table 1 because it is a non-detected compound and is not a COC.
Comment: GM requests that EPA Region VI incorporate the same risk
level used by EPA Region V for arsenic. EPA should correct the cadmium
concentration to 0.36 mg/l. GM is unable to recreate the levels
presented for both the inorganic and organic constituents because EPA
has yet to make available to the public a current and corrected version
of the DRAS model.
Response:
? The maximum TCLP concentration of arsenic is below
detection limit and is not a COC for GM-Arlington's delisting exclusion.
? The delisting level for cadmium is 0.36 mg/l and has been
corrected in the final exclusion language.
? EPA Region 6 used DRAS Version 2.0 to evaluate risk from
disposal of the GM-Arlington wastes. The maximum concentration levels
we proposed for the GM-Arlington rule are based on the delisting
process. We will provide GM with this Version of the DRAS on CD. The
model is run at a risk level of 1 x 10-\5\ and a hazard
quotient of 0.1. EPA Regions 5 and 6 currently use different risk level
thresholds for calculating waste concentrations, Region 6 risk
assessors feel confident that using the risk level and hazard quotient
in this manner provide protective results for all Region 6 petitioners.
Web Link for Accessing DRAS
Comment: The web link referenced in the preamble to access the DRAS
model is incorrect. GM suggests that EPA correct this link as follows:
http://www.epa.gov/region6/6pd/rcra_c/pd-o/dras/dras.htm
Response: We acknowledge the web link: http://www.epa.gov/region6/
is incorrect. The link to the risk assessment page of the Delisting
Program Webpage is sometimes broken when updates to the web page are made.
The DRAS can be accessed by using the Region 6 hazardous waste delisting
program page as a point of entry. That web link is currently:
http://www.epa.gov/arkansas/6pd/rcra_c/pd-o/delist.htm. The DRAS will
be associated with the ``risk assessment'' link.
4. Data Submittal/Changes in Operating Conditions
Comment: GM requests that EPA clarify the preamble language to
match the language in condition (4) Changes in Operating Conditions, in
Table 1. The condition requires EPA approval, when and if, there is a
significant change in the waste that may or could result in a
significant change in composition of the waste. This comment is also
supported by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
Response: As stated above, we do not republish preamble language.
As GM states, the language found in the exclusion language of Appendix
IX to Part 261--Waste Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and 260.22.
Table 1--Waste Excluded From Non-Specific Sources, explains what GM
must do in cases where operating conditions change. Any changes which
affect waste composition, waste volume, and toxicants' concentration
levels above health-based safe criteria require notification of EPA
whether it is a process or an equipment change in operation.
5. Table 1 Delisting Levels
Comment: GM requests that EPA reevaluate the list of constituents
of concern identified in the proposed conditions for the delisting. GM
requests that 51 chemicals be removed from the list of constituents
with corresponding delisting levels. There also 5 chemicals that were
detected but the TCLP results were not within 2 orders of magnitude of
the DRAS exit level. GM requests that these five chemicals be removed
also. This comment is also supported by the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers.
Response: The undetected constituents will be removed from Table 1.
EPA Region 6 lists all detected constituents with a corresponding
delisting concentration level in its exclusions. If the concentrations
ever exceed the delisting limit, they would go unmonitored because
testing was not required for the verification and annual testing. The
following sixteen (16) chemicals will remain in the final rule as COCs:
(1) Acetone; (2) Ethyl Benzene; (3) n-Butyl Alcohol; (4) Toluene; (5)
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate; (6) p-Cresol; (7) Naphthalene; (8) Barium;
(9) Cadmium; (10) Chromium; (11) Cobalt; (12) Lead; (13) Nickel; (14)
Silver; (15) Tin; and (16) Zinc.
6. Verification Testing
Comment: The verification testing requirements as described in the
preamble and proposed conditions for delisting are confusing and
inconsistent with other delisting conditions for similar waste streams.
This comment is also supported by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
Response: Delistings are site-specific rule makings. The
verification and sampling requirements for a petition will vary and be
structured under consideration of the site specific conditions.
Initial Verification Sampling and Quarterly Sampling
Comment: GM believes eight samples required for the initial
sampling schedule is overly rigorous and requests that EPA remove the
initial sampling verification requirement. GM proposes that it will
manage the waste as hazardous until it has performed verification
testing of one sample analyzed for ten constituents. Provided that the
delisting levels are not exceeded, then GM may manage the waste as
nonhazardous. This is consistent with the delisting petition issued in
Region 5 for similar facilities. GM-Arlington will be at a competitive
disadvantage, if it were to have to manage its wastes differently from
those included in the Region 5 petition. This comment is also supported
by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
Response: Sixteen data points are necessary to perform statistical
analysis on the data received. GM proposes in its comment to perform
only one sample. One sample cannot be a statistical pool. EPA proposed,
during the verification period, that 18 samples would be collected. The
verification requirements of eight (8) initial samples, 6 samples over
the next three quarters, in addition to the 6 samples initially
provided was proposed so that enough data would be collected to
complete statistical analysis of the data provided. The EPA has
considered the comments made by GM and the requirement of eight initial
samples will be reduced to two. The number of samples for the quarterly
sampling will remain the same, two each quarter for the first year. EPA
will not evaluate the data using a statistical approach; we will use
the highest concentration of each chemical to evaluate the petition.
The Verification Testing Language has been revised to represent the
following: (1) Two samples taken in the first 30 days after the
exclusion is issued; (2) The report
[[Page 46]]
provided to EPA thirty days after the samples are taken, which is 60
days after the exclusion has been issued--Management of the waste as
non-hazardous may begin after the EPA reviews and approves the data;
(3) GM must then perform subsequent verification by collecting and
analyzing two samples for each sampling event for the next three
quarters of the first year. Quarterly reports are due to EPA within 30
days of the sampling event; and (4) After completion of the Initial and
Subsequent testing and notification by letter from EPA, GM will be
required to collect one sample annually, and provide EPA with the
results from the annual verification test within 30 days of the
sampling event.
Initial Sludge Management
Comment: GM requests that the Arlington, TX facility be allowed to
manage its sludge as non-hazardous upon completion of the first
successful verification sampling event.
Response: As stated above, EPA Region 6 will allow GM to manage its
waste as non-hazardous if the sludge meets the delisting levels after
the initial verification testing.
Retesting
Comment: GM supports the delisting conditions of Table 1, condition
2(c) which allows GM-Arlington to collect one additional sample and
perform expedited analysis to verify an exceedance of a delisting level.
Response: While in such limited testing scenarios EPA does not
expect a petitioned waste to fail the delisting levels, there are
instances where anomalous results may be reported. EPA will allow a
petitioner to retest to confirm or disprove an anomalous result.
Reduced Verification Requirements
Comment: GM supports EPA's approach to allow GM to end the
quarterly sampling requirement after one year of successfully
demonstrating that the waste meets the delisting levels.
Response: Annual sampling is required after one year of quarterly
sampling as it states in Table 1 Condition (3)(C)(ii).
Analytical Quality Control Information
Comment: GM requests clarification as to what information will
satisfy the requirement in Condition (3)(A)(iii) regarding analytical
quality control information.
Response: EPA expects that analytical quality control information
and the sample analysis include the data from an equipment blank,
quality of distilled water or extraction solvent, duplicates for
precision measurement, a spike to measure % recovery for accuracy to
define the closeness of the true values of measured data.
7. Data Submittals/Certification Statement
Comment: GM requests that EPA allow GM to replace the certification
language proposed with the certification language in 40 CFR
260.22(i)(12), consistent with other delisting petitions granted by EPA
for similar waste streams. This comment is also supported by the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
Response: The certification language included in the proposed
exclusion is consistent with the language in all EPA Region 6
conditional exclusions. No change to this language will be made.
Other Comments and Changes in the EPA Proposed Rule for GM
1. Page 41360, III A. There is a typographical error ``Felist''.
This should be ``Delist''.
2. Page 41360. Arsenic should be deleted from Table 1, since its
concentration is below the detection limit.
3. Page 41362. The web link to access the DRAS model should be
corrected.
4. Page 41362. The middle column states ``Using the risk
level(carcinogenic risk of 10-5 and non-cancer hazard index of 1.0) * *
*'' We use a hazard quotient for individual chemical is 0.1, assuming
average number of chemicals on site is 10. Therefore, the wording of
hazard index of 1.0 should be changed to hazard quotient of 0.1 because
we are talking about the risk level of each chemical. Hazard index means
the summation of quotients from individual non-carcinogenic compounds.
5. Page 41366. For Table 1 the number of delisting sixty-six (66)
constituents will be reduced to sixteen (16) chemicals by eliminating
undetected chemicals.
V. 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
[[Page 47]]
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, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f)
Dated: December 20, 2006.
Carl E. Edlund,
Director Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Region 6.
? For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is 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 add the following waste stream
in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Waste Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22.
Table 1.--Waste Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
General Motors.......... Arlington, TX........... Wastewater
Treatment Sludge
(WWTP) (EPA
Hazardous Waste No.
F019) generated at
a maximum annual
rate of 3,000 cubic
yards per calendar
year after January
3, 2007 and
disposed in a
Subtitle D
landfill.
For the exclusion to
be valid, GM-
Arlington must
implement a
verification
testing program
that meets the
following
paragraphs:
(1) Delisting
Levels: All
leachable
concentrations for
those constituents
must not exceed the
following levels
(mg/l for TCLP).
(i) Inorganic
Constituents: Barium-
100; Cadmium-0.36;
Chromium-5 (3.71) ;
Cobalt-18.02; Lead-
5; Nickel-67.8;
Silver-5; Tin-540;
Zinc-673.
(ii) Organic
Constituents:
Acetone-171;
Ethylbenzene-31.9; N-
Butyl Alcohol-171;
Toluene-45.6; Bis(2-
Ethylhexyl)
Phthalate-0.27; p-
Cresol-8.55;
Naphthalene-3.11.
(2) Waste
Management: (A) GM-
Arlington must
manage as hazardous
all WWTP sludge
generated, until it
has completed
initial
verification
testing described
in paragraph (3)(A)
and (B), as
appropriate, and
valid analyses show
that paragraph(1)
is satisfied.
(B) Levels of
constituents
measured in the
samples of the WWTP
sludge that do not
exceed the levels
set forth in
paragraph (1) are
non-hazardous. GM-
Arlington can manage
and dispose of the
non-hazardous WWTP
sludge according to
all applicable solid
waste regulations.
(C) If constituent
levels in a sample
exceed any of the
delisting levels set
in paragraph (1), GM-
Arlington can
collect one
additional sample
and perform
expedited analyses
to verify if the
constituent exceeds
the delisting level.
If this sample
confirms the
exceedance, GM-
Arlington must, from
that point forward,
treat the waste as
hazardous until it
is demonstrated that
the waste again
meets the levels in
paragraph (1). GM-
Arlington must
manage and dispose
of the waste
generated under
Subtitle C of RCRA
from the time it
becomes aware of any
exceedance.
(D) Upon
completion of the
Verification Testing
described in
paragraph 3(A) and
(B), as appropriate,
and the transmittal
of the results to
EPA, and if the
testing results meet
the requirements of
paragraph (1), GM-
Arlington may
proceed to manage
its WWTP sludge as
non-hazardous waste.
If subsequent
Verification Testing
indicates an
exceedance of the
Delisting Levels in
paragraph (1), GM-
Arlington must
manage the WWTP
sludge as a
hazardous waste
until two
consecutive
quarterly testing
samples show levels
below the Delisting
Levels in paragraph
(1).
(3) Verification
Testing
Requirements: GM-
Arlington must
perform sample
collection and
analyses, including
quality control
procedures,
according to
appropriate methods
such as those found
in SW-846 or other
reliable sources
(with the exception
of analyses
requiring the use
of SW-846 methods
incorporated by
reference in 40 CFR
260.11, which must
be used without
substitution) for
all constituents
listed in paragraph
(1). If EPA judges
the process to be
effective under the
operating
conditions used
during the initial
verification
testing, GM-
Arlington may
replace the testing
required in
paragraph (3)(A)
with the testing
required in
paragraph (3)(B).
GM-Arlington Plant
must continue to
test as specified
in paragraph (3)(A)
until and unless
notified by EPA in
writing that
testing in
paragraph (3)(A)
may be replaced by
paragraph (3)(B).
(A) Initial
Verification
Testing: After EPA
grants the final
exclusion, GM-
Arlington must do
the following:
(i) Within 30 days
of this exclusion
becoming final,
collect two (2)
samples, before
disposal, of the
WWTP sludge.
(ii) The samples
are to be analyzed
and compared against
the Delisting Levels
in paragraph (1).
(iii) Within 60
days of the
exclusion becoming
final, GM-Arlington
must report to EPA
the initial
verification
analytical test data
for the WWTP sludge,
including analytical
quality control
information for the
first thirty (30)
days of operation
after this exclusion
becomes final.
If levels of
constituents
measured in these
samples of the WWTP
sludge do not
exceed the levels
set forth in
paragraph (1), GM-
Arlington can
manage and dispose
of the WWTP sludge
according to all
applicable solid
waste regulations.
[[Page 48]]
(B) Subsequent
Verification
Testing: Following
written
notification by
EPA, GM-Arlington
may substitute the
testing conditions
in paragraph (3)(B)
for paragraph
(3)(A). GM-
Arlington must
continue to monitor
operating
conditions, and
analyze two
representative
samples of the WWTP
sludge for the next
three quarters of
operation during
the first year of
waste generation.
The samples must
represent the waste
generated during
the quarter.
Quarterly reports
are due to EPA,
thirty days after
the samples are
taken.
After the first year
of analytical
sampling,
verification
sampling can be
performed on a
single annual
sample of the WWTP
sludge. The results
are to be compared
to the delisting
levels in paragraph
(1).
(C) Termination of
Testing:
(i) After the
first year of
quarterly testing,
if the delisting
levels in paragraph
(1) are being met,
GM-Arlington may
then request that
EPA not require
quarterly testing.
(ii) Following
cancellation of the
quarterly testing by
EPA letter, GM-
Arlington must
continue to test one
representative
sample for all
constituents listed
in paragraph (1)
annually. Results
must be provided to
EPA within 30 days
of the testing.
(4) Changes in
Operating
Conditions: If GM-
Arlington
significantly
changes the process
described in its
petition or starts
any process that
generates the waste
that may or could
significantly
affect the
composition or type
of waste generated
as established
under paragraph (1)
(by illustration,
but not limitation,
changes in
equipment or
operating
conditions of the
treatment process),
it must notify EPA
in writing; it may
no longer handle
the wastes
generated from the
new process as
nonhazardous until
the wastes meet the
delisting levels
set in paragraph
(1) and it has
received written
approval to do so
from EPA.
(5) Data Submittals:
GM-Arlington must
submit the
information
described below. If
GM-Arlington fails
to submit the
required data
within the
specified time or
maintain the
required records on-
site for the
specified time,
EPA, at its
discretion, will
consider this
sufficient basis to
reopen the
exclusion as
described in
paragraph 6. GM-
Arlington must:
(A) Submit the
data obtained
through paragraph(3)
to the Section
Chief, Region 6
Corrective Action
and Waste
Minimization
Section, EPA, 1445
Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733,
Mail Code, (6PD-C)
within the time
specified.
(B) Compile
records of operating
conditions and
analytical data from
paragraph (3),
summarized, and
maintained on-site
for a minimum of
five years.
(C) Furnish these
records and data
when EPA or the
State of Texas
requests them for
inspection.
(D) Send along
with all data a
signed copy of the
following
certification
statement, to attest
to the truth and
accuracy of the data
submitted:
``Under civil and
criminal penalty of
law for the making
or submission of
false or fraudulent
statements or
representations
(pursuant to the
applicable
provisions of the
Federal Code, which
include, but may
not be limited to,
18 U.S.C. 1001 and
42 U.S.C. 6928), I
certify that the
information
contained in or
accompanying this
document is true,
accurate and
complete.
As to the (those)
identified
section(s) of this
document for which
I cannot personally
verify its (their)
truth and accuracy,
I certify as the
company official
having supervisory
responsibility for
the persons who,
acting under my
direct
instructions, made
the verification
that this
information is
true, accurate and
complete.
If any of this
information is
determined by EPA
in its sole
discretion to be
false, inaccurate
or incomplete, and
upon conveyance of
this fact to the
company, I
recognize and agree
that this exclusion
of waste will be
void as if it never
had effect or to
the extent directed
by EPA and that the
company will be
liable for any
actions taken in
contravention of
the company's RCRA
and CERCLA
obligations
premised upon the
company's reliance
on the void
exclusion.''
(6) Re-opener;
(A) If, anytime
after disposal of
the delisted waste,
GM-Arlington
possesses or is
otherwise made aware
of any environmental
data (including but
not limited to
leachate data or
groundwater
monitoring data) or
any other data
relevant to the
delisted waste
indicating that any
constituent
identified for the
delisting
verification testing
is at a level higher
than the delisting
level allowed by EPA
in granting the
petition, then the
facility must report
the data, in
writing, to EPA
within 10 days of
first possessing or
being made aware of
that data.
(B) If either the
quarterly or annual
testing of the waste
does not meet the
delisting
requirements in
paragraph 1, GM-
Arlington must
report the data, in
writing, to EPA
within 10 days of
first possessing or
being made aware of
that data.
(C) If GM-
Arlington fails to
submit the
information
described in
paragraphs (5),
(6)(A) or (6)(B) or
if any other
information is
received from any
source, EPA will
make a preliminary
determination as to
whether the reported
information requires
action to protect
human health and/or
the environment.
Further action may
include suspending,
or revoking the
exclusion, or other
appropriate response
necessary to protect
human health and the
environment.
(D) If EPA
determines that the
reported information
requires action, EPA
will notify the
facility in writing
of the actions it
believes are
necessary to protect
human health and the
environment. The
notice shall include
a statement of the
proposed action and
a statement
providing the
facility with an
opportunity to
present information
explaining why the
proposed EPA action
is not necessary.
The facility shall
have 10 days from
the date of EPA's
notice to present
such information.
[[Page 49]]
(E) Following the
receipt of
information from the
facility described
in paragraph (6)(D)
or (if no
information is
presented under
paragraph (6)(D))
the initial receipt
of information
described in
paragraphs (5),
(6)(A) or (6)(B),
EPA will issue a
final written
determination
describing the
actions that are
necessary to protect
human health and/or
the environment. Any
required action
described in EPA's
determination shall
become effective
immediately, unless
EPA provides
otherwise.
(7) Notification
Requirements: GM-
Arlington must do
the following
before transporting
the delisted waste.
Failure to provide
this notification
will result in a
violation of the
delisting petition
and a possible
revocation of the
decision.
(A) Provide a one-
time written
notification to any
state Regulatory
Agency to which or
through which it
will transport the
delisted waste
described above for
disposal, 60 days
before beginning
such activities.
(B) Update the one-
time written
notification if it
ships the delisted
waste into a
different disposal
facility.
(C) Failure to
provide this
notification will
result in a
violation of the
delisting variance
and a possible
revocation of the
decision.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E6-22434 Filed 12-29-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P