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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW-FRL-5813-2]

Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to

grant a petition submitted by General Motors Corporation, Orion

Assembly Center (GM) in Lake Orion, Michigan, to exclude (or

``delist'') certain solid wastes generated by its wastewater treatment

plant from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in subpart D of part

261. This action responds to a ``delisting'' petition submitted under

Sec. 260.20, which allows any person to petition the Administrator to

modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through 266, 268 and 273,

and under Sec. 260.22, which specifically provides generators the

opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a

``generator-specific'' basis from the hazardous waste lists. This

proposed decision is based on an evaluation of waste-specific

information provided by the petitioner. If this proposed decision is

finalized, the petitioned waste will be conditionally excluded from the

requirements of the hazardous waste regulations under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

DATES: EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision.

Comments must be received in writing

[[Page 19088]]

by June 2, 1997. Comments postmarked after the close of the comment

period will be stamped ``late.''

Any person may request a hearing on this proposed decision by

filing a request with Norman R. Niedergang, Director, Waste, Pesticides

and Toxics Division, at the address listed under ADDRESSES, by May 19,

1997. The request must contain the information prescribed in

Sec. 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Two copies of any comments should be sent to Steven Pak,

Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division, Waste Management Branch (DRP-

8J), U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.

Requests for a hearing should be addressed to Norman R. Niedergang,

Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division (D-8J), U.S. EPA Region

5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.

The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule which contains

the complete petition and supporting documents is located at the U.S.

EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, and is available

for viewing from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding Federal holidays. Call Steven Pak at (312) 886-4446 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 notice, contact Steven Pak at the address listed under ADDRESSES

or at (312) 886-4446.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Authority

On January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim final

regulations implementing Section 3001 of RCRA, EPA published an amended

list of hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific sources. This

list has been amended several times, and is published in Secs. 261.31

and 261.32. These wastes are listed as hazardous because they typically

and frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous

wastes identified in Subpart C of Part 261 (i.e., ignitability,

corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or meet the criteria for listing

contained in Sec. 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3).

Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw

materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste

that is described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a

specific waste from an individual facility meeting the listing

description may not be. For this reason, Secs. 260.20 and 260.22

provide an exclusion procedure, allowing persons to demonstrate that a

specific waste from a particular generating facility should not be

regulated as a hazardous waste.

To have their wastes excluded, petitioners must show that wastes

generated at their facilities do not meet any of the criteria for which

the wastes were listed. See Sec. 260.22(a)(1) and the background

documents for the listed wastes. In addition, the Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 require EPA to consider any factors

(including additional constituents) other than those for which the

waste was listed, if there is a reasonable basis to believe that such

additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. See

Sec. 260.22(a)(2). Accordingly, a petitioner also must demonstrate that

the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics

(i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity), and must

present sufficient information for EPA to determine whether the waste

contains any other constituents at hazardous levels. Although wastes

which are ``delisted'' (i.e., excluded) have been evaluated to

determine whether or not they exhibit any of the characteristics of

hazardous waste, generators remain obligated under RCRA to determine

whether or not their waste remains non-hazardous based on the hazardous

waste characteristics.

In addition, residues from the treatment, storage, or disposal of

listed hazardous wastes and mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes

are also considered hazardous wastes. See Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and

(c)(2)(i), referred to as the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,

respectively. Such wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain

hazardous wastes until excluded. On December 6, 1991, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the ``mixture/derived

from'' rules and remanded them to EPA on procedural grounds. Shell Oil

Co. v. EPA, 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1991). On March 3, 1992, EPA

reinstated the mixture and derived-from rules, and solicited comments

on other ways to regulate waste mixtures and residues (57 FR 7628). EPA

plans to address issues related to waste mixtures and residues in a

future rulemaking.

B. Approach Used to Evaluate This Petition

GM's petition requests a delisting for a listed hazardous waste. In

making the initial delisting determination, EPA evaluated the

petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in

Sec. 261.11(a). Based on this review, EPA tentatively agreed with the

petitioner, pending public comment, that the waste is non-hazardous

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 was originally listed, EPA would have proposed to

deny the petition.

EPA then evaluated the waste with respect to other factors or

criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that

other factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA considered

whether the waste is acutely toxic, and considered the concentration of

the constituents in the waste, the toxicity of the constituents, 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.

For this delisting determination, EPA used such information

gathered to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground water,

surface water, air) for hazardous constituents present in the

petitioned waste. EPA determined that disposal in a Subtitle D landfill

is the most reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for GM's

petitioned waste, and that the major exposure route of concern would be

ingestion of contaminated ground water. Therefore, EPA used a fate and

transport model to predict the maximum concentrations of hazardous

constituents that may be released from the petitioned waste after

disposal and to determine the potential impact of the disposal of GM's

petitioned waste on human health and the environment. Specifically, EPA

used the maximum estimated waste volume and the maximum reported

extract concentrations as inputs to estimate the constituent

concentrations in the ground water at a hypothetical receptor well down

gradient from the disposal site. The calculated receptor well

concentrations (referred to as compliance-point concentrations) were

then compared directly to the health-based levels at an assumed risk of

10 -6 used in delisting decision-making for the hazardous

constituents of concern.

EPA believes that this fate and transport model represents a

reasonable worst-case scenario for disposal of the petitioned waste in

a landfill, and that a reasonable worst-case scenario is appropriate

when evaluating whether a waste should be relieved of the protective

management constraints of RCRA Subtitle C (parts 260 through 266 and

268). The use of a reasonable worst-case scenario results in

conservative

[[Page 19089]]

values for the compliance-point concentrations and ensures that the

waste, once removed from hazardous waste regulation, should not pose a

threat to human health or the environment.

EPA also considers the applicability of on-site ground-water

monitoring data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this

case, EPA determined that it would be inappropriate to request ground-

water monitoring data because GM currently disposes of the petitioned

waste off-site. For petitioners using off-site management, EPA believes

that, in most cases, the ground water monitoring data would not be

meaningful. Most commercial land disposal facilities accept waste from

numerous generators. Any ground water contamination or leachate would

be characteristic of the total volume of waste disposed of at the site.

In most cases, EPA believes that it would be impossible to isolate

ground water impacts associated with any one waste disposed of in a

commercial landfill. Therefore, the EPA did not request ground water

monitoring data from GM.

From the evaluation of GM's delisting petition, a list of

constituents was developed for annual verification testing. Proposed

maximum allowable leachable concentrations for these constituents were

derived by back-calculating from the delisting health-based levels

through the proposed fate and transport model. These concentrations

(i.e., ``delisting levels'') are part of the verification testing

conditions of this proposed exclusion.

Finally, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984

specifically require EPA to provide notice and an opportunity for

comment before granting or denying a final exclusion. Thus, a final

decision will not be made until all timely public comments (including

those at public hearings, if any) on today's proposal are addressed.

II. Disposition of Delisting Petition

General Motors Corporation, Orion Assembly Center, 4555 Giddings

Road, Lake Orion, Michigan 48361-1001.

A. Petition for Exclusion

General Motors Corporation, Orion Assembly Center (GM), located in

Lake Orion, Michigan, assembles automobiles from parts and materials

supplied by outside sources. The assembly process includes the chemical

conversion coating (phosphate coating) of steel, galvanized steel, and

aluminum automobile body panels. The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)

filter press sludge generated from this process is presently listed as

EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019--``Wastewater treatment sludges from the

chemical conversion coating of aluminum except from zirconium

phosphating in aluminum can washing when such phosphating is an

exclusive conversion coating process.'' The listed constituents of

concern for EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019 are hexavalent chromium and

cyanide (complexed) (see appendix VII of part 261).

On January 12, 1996, GM petitioned to exclude its WWTP filter press

sludge because it believes that the petitioned waste does not meet any

of the criteria under which the waste was listed and that there are no

additional constituents or factors that could cause the waste to be

hazardous. Review of this petition included consideration of the

original listing criteria, as well as the additional factors required

by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. See Section

222 of HSWA, 42 USC 6921(f), and Sec. 260.22.

B. Background

On January 12, 1996, GM petitioned EPA to exclude an annual volume

of 1,500 cubic yards of WWTP filter press sludge from the list of

hazardous wastes contained in Sec. 261.31, and subsequently provided

additional information to complete its petition. In support of its

petition, GM submitted detailed descriptions and schematic diagrams of

its manufacturing and wastewater treatment processes, and analytical

testing results for representative samples of the petitioned waste,

including (1) the hazardous characteristics of ignitability,

corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity; (2) total constituent and

Extraction Procedure for Oily Wastes (OWEP, SW-846 Method 1330)

analyses for the eight toxicity characteristic metals listed in

Sec. 261.24, plus antimony, beryllium, cobalt, copper, hexavalent

chromium, nickel, tin, thallium, vanadium, and zinc; (3) total

constituent and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW-

846 Method 1311) analyses for 163 volatile and semi-volatile organic

compounds; (4) total constituent and TCLP analyses for total sulfide,

total cyanide, and complexed cyanide; and (5) total constituent

analysis for oil and grease, total organic carbon, and percent solids.

GM's automobile assembly process includes the chemical conversion

coating (phosphate coating) of automobile body panels. Prior to

phosphate coating, the automobile bodies are cleaned, rinsed, and

conditioned to promote phosphate crystal refinement. The automobile

bodies are then dipped in a 76,000 gallon tank containing the phosphate

coating solution. The phosphate coating provides a micro-crystalline

corrosion resistant base required for the application of electro-

deposited paint. Following phosphate coating, the automobile bodies are

rinsed, sprayed with a trivalent chromium sealer to protect and enhance

the phosphate coating, and rinsed. The application of the chromium

sealer is a physical process and is not a chemical conversion process.

After leaving the phosphate process line, the automobile bodies enter

the electro-deposition process line where the automobile bodies are

rinsed, dipped in a 68,000 gallon tank where an electro-deposited paint

film is applied, rinsed, and then baked in an oven at 350 degrees

Fahrenheit for 35 minutes. The automobile body then goes to the paint

shop process line where primer paint and basecoats, antichip coats, and

clearcoats are applied in spraybooths.

The WWTP treats assembly plant process wastewater and powerhouse

process wastewater. The assembly plant process wastewater is composed

primarily of car washing and plant clean-up and maintenance water, and

wastewater generated by the phosphate and electro-deposition lines. The

powerhouse wastewater is composed primarily of boiler blowdown and

cooling water. Under normal operating conditions, paint shop process

wastewater is not routed to the WWTP.

Treatment at the WWTP is a batch operation. General wastewater from

the assembly plant enters one of two solids separators. Each separator

is equipped with a surface skimmer, dragout system, and oil skimmer for

removing floating and settleable solids as well as floating oil. The

wastewater discharges through a bar screen and is mixed with the

phosphate process line wastewater, electro-deposition process line

wastewater, and powerhouse wastewater, and is discharged to one of

three batch process treatment tanks. Reagents such as sodium hydroxide,

sulfuric acid, and lime, are added and the wastewater is pumped to the

clarifiers after treatment is complete. Two clarifiers are utilized in

parallel or series to separate the liquid and solid phases of the

wastewater. Lime and a secondary flocculent aid are added to improve

coagulation and flocculation. The settled sludge is pumped to the

sludge thickener tank and the supernatant is discharged over weirs and

flows to the pH adjustment sump. The supernatant pH is adjusted with

sulfuric acid, if necessary, and discharged to the Detroit Water and

[[Page 19090]]

Sewage Department sewer system. In the sludge thickener tank, the

sludge is thickened with a sludge rake and then pumped to the sludge

conditioning tank where it is mixed with lime and filter aid. The

conditioned sludge is then pumped to one of two filter presses.

Filtrate from the filter presses, as well as supernatant generated in

the sludge thickener and sludge conditioning tanks, drains to the

powerhouse sump and is subsequently pumped back to the WWTP for

treatment. After dewatering, the filter press cake falls into 20 cubic

yard roll-off boxes beneath the filter presses. Once a roll-off box is

filled, the waste is disposed of in a land-based management facility as

a hazardous waste.

GM submitted a signed certification stating that, based on

projected annual waste generation, the maximum annual generation rate

of WWTP filter press sludge will not exceed 1,500 cubic yards per year

(this corresponds to a mass of approximately 1,500 tons per year based

on a reported sludge density of 75 pounds per cubic foot). The EPA

reviews a petitioner's estimates of maximum waste generation and, on

occasion, has requested a petitioner to re-evaluate the estimated waste

generation rate. EPA accepts GM's estimate.

C. Waste Analysis

GM developed a list of analytical constituents based on a review of

facility processes, Material Safety Data Sheets for raw materials and

chemical additives used in the manufacturing process, and

recommendations contained in EPA delisting guidance. See Petitions to

Delist Hazardous Wastes, A Guidance Manual, dated March 1993.

For GM's petition, the WWTP filter press sludge was sampled from

four separate roll-off boxes on February 20, 1995. Each roll-off box

contained WWTP filter press sludge generated over a period of

approximately one week and the four boxes were filled on consecutive

weeks. One composite and one grab sample of sludge was collected from

each roll-off box. Composite samples consisted of sixteen full-depth

core grab samples mixed together to form one sample. Composite samples

were analyzed for semi-volatile organic compounds and inorganic

constituents. Full-depth core grab samples were analyzed for volatile

organic compounds (VOCs). Grab samples were collected for VOC analysis

to eliminate the possibility of VOC loss due to volatilization which

may occur during preparation of composite samples. Samples were

collected with a stainless steel hand auger.

Additional samples were taken in 1996 after a minor change to the

phosphate coating solution which added magnesium salts. At the request

of EPA, the results of the analyses were submitted on December 3, 1996.

To quantify the total constituent and leachate concentrations, GM

used SW-846 Method 6010 for antimony, barium, beryllium, cadmium,

chromium, cobalt, copper, nickel, silver, thallium, vanadium, and zinc;

Method 7060 for arsenic; Method 7421 for lead; Method 7471 for total

mercury and Method 7470 for leachate mercury; Method 7740 for selenium;

Method 7870 for tin; Method 7196 for hexavalent chromium; Method 9010

for cyanide (total and complexed); Method 9030 for sulfide; Method 8240

for volatile organic compounds; and Method 8270 for semi-volatile

organic compounds. Along with these methods, GM used the Extraction

Procedure for Oily Wastes (OWEP, SW-846 Method 1330) and the Toxicity

Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW-846 Method 1311), as

described below, to determine leachate concentrations.

Using SW-846 Method 9071, GM determined that the samples of the

petitioned waste had oil and grease contents ranging from 25,000 mg/kg

to 41,000 mg/kg. Consistent with EPA delisting guidance, GM used OWEP

to quantify the leachable levels of metals and TCLP to quantify the

leachable levels of cyanide, sulfide, volatile organic compounds, and

semi-volatile organic compounds.

Characteristic testing of the samples included analysis of reactive

cyanide (SW-846 Method 7.3.3.2) and reactive sulfide (SW-846 Method

7.3.4.2), ignitability (SW-846 Method 1010), and corrosivity (SW-846

9045).

Table 1 presents the maximum total and leachate concentrations for

18 metals, total cyanide, complexed cyanide, and total sulfide. Table 1

also includes maximum total concentrations for reactive cyanide and

reactive sulfide.

The detection limits presented in Table 1 represent the lowest

concentrations quantifiable by GM when using the appropriate SW-846

methods to analyze its waste. (Detection limits may vary according to

the waste and waste matrix being analyzed, i.e., the ``cleanliness'' of

waste matrices varies and ``dirty'' waste matrices may cause

interferences, thus raising detection limits.)

Table 1.--Maximum Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations \1\

[WWTP Filter Press Sludge]

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

Total OWEP/TCLP

constituent leachate

Inorganic constituents analyses (mg/ analyses (mg/

kg) l)

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

Antimony................................ 5.0 , \3\ 0.7

Vanadium................................ 0.00004 0.2

Zinc.................................... 0.0082 10

1,2-Dichloroethane...................... 0.0001 0.005

Ethylbenzene............................ 0.0001 0.7

4-Methylphenol.......................... 0.0007 \3\ 0.18

Naphthalene............................. 0.00001 1

Phenol.................................. 0.00032 20

Xylene.................................. 0.0001 10

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

\1\ See ``Docket Report on Health-Based Levels and Solubilities Used in

the Evaluation of Delisting Petitions,'' December 1994, located in the

RCRA public docket for today's notice.

\2\ The Maximum Contaminant Level promulgated under the Safe Drinking

Water Act was vacated and remanded and subsequently removed from the

Code of Federal Regulations on June 29, 1995 (60 FR 33926).

\3\ Based on the oral reference dose from ``Risk-Based Concentration

Table, January-June 1996,'' March 7, 1997, and the equation used for

calculating delisting health-based levels found in the document

referenced in footnote.

Note: See the RCRA public docket for today's notice for the specific

reference doses and the calculation of the health-based levels.

For inorganic constituents, the maximum reported leachate

concentrations of arsenic, barium, chromium (total), cobalt, copper,

nickel, vanadium, and zinc in the WWTP filter press sludge yielded

compliance point concentrations well below the health-based levels used

in delisting decision-making. EPA did not evaluate the mobility of the

remaining inorganic constituents (i.e., antimony, beryllium, cadmium,

chromium (hexavalent), lead, mercury, selenium, silver, thallium, tin,

reactive cyanide, and reactive sulfide) from GM's waste because they

were not detected in the leachate using the appropriate analytical test

methods (see Table 1). EPA also evaluated the potential hazards of the

organic constituents detected in the TCLP extract of GM's samples

(i.e., 1,2-dichloroethane, ethylbenzene, 4-methylphenol, naphthalene,

phenol, and xylene). The calculated compliance point concentrations are

significantly below the respective health-based levels. EPA believes

that it is inappropriate to evaluate non-detectable concentrations of a

constituent of concern in its modeling efforts if the non-detectable

value was obtained using the appropriate analytical method. If a

constituent cannot be detected (when using the appropriate analytical

method with an adequate detection limit), EPA assumes that the

constituent is not present and therefore does not present a threat to

human health or the environment.

After reviewing GM's processes, EPA accepts GM's analysis that no

other hazardous constituents, other than those tested for, are likely

to be present in the waste, and that any migration of hazardous

constituents from the waste would result in concentrations below

delisting health-based levels of concern. In addition, on the basis of

test results and information provided by GM pursuant to Sec. 260.22,

EPA concludes that the petitioned waste does not exhibit any of the

characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity.

In its evaluation of GM's petition, EPA also considered the

potential impact of the petitioned waste via non-ground water routes

(i.e., air emission and surface runoff). With regard to airborne

dispersal, EPA believes that no appreciable air releases are likely

from GM's waste under any likely disposal conditions. Therefore, there

is no substantial hazard to human health from airborne exposure to

constituents from GM's petitioned waste.

EPA also considered the potential impact of the petitioned wastes

via a surface water route. EPA believes that containment structures at

municipal solid waste landfills can effectively control surface water

run-off, as the Subtitle D regulations (see 56 FR 50978, October 9,

1991) prohibit pollutant discharges into surface waters. Furthermore,

the concentrations of any hazardous constituents in the run-off will

tend to be lower than the extraction procedure test results reported in

today's notice because of the aggressive acidic media used for

extraction in the TCLP and OWEP. EPA believes that, in general,

leachate derived from the waste is unlikely to directly enter a surface

water body without first traveling through the saturated subsurface

where dilution/attenuation of hazardous constituents will also occur.

Leachable concentrations provide a direct measure of the solubility of

a toxic constituent in water, and are indicative of the fraction of the

constituent that may be mobilized in surface water, as well as ground

water. The reported TCLP and OWEP data shows that the constituents that

might be released from GM's waste to surface water would be likely to

leach in concentrations that would be below the health-based levels of

concern. EPA, therefore, concludes that GM's waste is not a significant

hazard to human health or the environment via the surface water

exposure pathway.

E. Conclusion

Based on descriptions of the process from which the petitioned

waste is derived, descriptions of GM's wastewater treatment process,

and analytical characterization of the petitioned waste, EPA believes

that GM has successfully demonstrated that the petitioned waste is not

hazardous. EPA, therefore, proposes to grant an exclusion to GM for its

WWTP filter press sludge described in its petition as EPA Hazardous

Waste No. F019. If made final, the proposed exclusion will apply to

1,500 tons (or 1,500 cubic yards) of petitioned waste generated

annually, on a calendar year basis. The facility must treat waste

generated in excess of 1,500 tons (or 1,500 cubic yards) per year as

[[Page 19093]]

hazardous. If either the manufacturing or treatment processes are

significantly altered such that an adverse change in waste composition

occurs (e.g., significantly higher levels of hazardous constituents),

this exclusion would no longer be valid.

Although management of the waste covered by this petition would be

removed from Subtitle C jurisdiction upon final promulgation of an

exclusion, this exclusion applies only where this waste is disposed of

in a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by

a State to manage municipal or industrial solid waste.

F. Verification Testing Conditions

EPA is proposing to require GM to demonstrate on an annual basis

that the constituents of concern in the petitioned waste do not exceed

the levels of concern in paragraph 1 below. These levels are based on

delisting health-based values and a DAF of 90. GM must analyze a

minimum of four representative samples of the WWTP filter press sludge

on an annual, calendar-year basis using methods with appropriate

detection levels and quality control procedures. If the level of any

constituent measured in any sample of WWTP filter press sludge exceeds

the levels set forth in paragraph 1 below, then the waste is hazardous

and must be managed in accordance with Subtitle C of RCRA.

1. Delisting Levels

Concentrations measured in the TCLP (or OWEP, where appropriate)

extract of the waste of the following constituents must not exceed the

following levels (mg/l).

Arsenic--4.5; Barium--180.; Chromium (total)--9.; Cobalt--189.;

Copper--126.; Nickel--63.; Vanadium--18.; Zinc--900.; 1,2-

Dichloroethane--0.45; Ethylbenzene--63.; 4-Methylphenol--16.2;

Naphthalene--90.; Phenol--1800.; Xylene--900. These levels are derived

by back-calculating from the delisting health-based levels and a DAF of

90 for all constituents detected in the TCLP and OWEP extract of the

petitioned waste.

2. Changes in Operating Conditions

If GM significantly changes the manufacturing or treatment process

or the chemicals used in the manufacturing or treatment process, GM may

handle the WWTP filter press sludge generated from the new process

under this exclusion after the facility has demonstrated that the waste

meets the levels set in paragraph 1 and that no new hazardous

constituents listed in appendix VIII of part 261 have been introduced.

3. Data Submittals

The data obtained through annual verification testing or paragraph

2 must be submitted to U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,

IL 60604, within 60 days of sampling. Records of operating conditions

and analytical data must be compiled, summarized, and maintained on

site for a minimum of five years and must be made available for

inspection. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the

certification statement in Sec. 260.22(i)(12).

III. Effect on State Authorizations

This proposed exclusion, if promulgated, would be issued under the

Federal (RCRA) delisting program. States, however, may impose more

stringent regulatory requirements than EPA, pursuant to section 3009 of

RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision which

prohibits a Federally-issued exclusion from taking effect in the State.

Because a petitioner's waste may be regulated under a dual system

(i.e., both Federal (RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) programs), petitioners

are urged to contact State regulatory authorities to determine the

current status of their wastes under the State laws.

Furthermore, some States are authorized to administer a delisting

program in lieu of the Federal program (i.e., to make their own

delisting decisions). Therefore, this proposed exclusion, if

promulgated, would not apply in those authorized States. If the

petitioned waste will be transported to any State with delisting

authorization, GM must obtain delisting authorization from that State

before the waste may be managed as nonhazardous in the State.

IV. Effective Date

This rule, if made final, will become effective immediately upon

such final 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. That is the case here,

because this rule, if finalized, would reduce the existing requirements

for persons generating hazardous wastes. In light of the unnecessary

hardship and expense that would be imposed on this petitioner by an

effective date six months after publication and the fact that a six-

month deadline is not necessary to achieve the purpose of Section 3010,

EPA believes that this exclusion should be effective immediately upon

final publication. These reasons also provide a basis for making this

rule effective immediately, upon final publication, under the

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

V. Regulatory Impact

Under Executive Order 12291, EPA must judge whether a regulation is

``major'' and therefore subject to the requirement of a Regulatory

Impact Analysis. The proposal to grant an exclusion is not major, since

its effect, if promulgated, would be to reduce the overall costs and

economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. This

reduction would be achieved by excluding waste generated at a specific

facility from EPA's lists of hazardous wastes, thereby enabling this

facility to manage its waste as non-hazardous. There is no additional

impact, therefore, due to today's proposed rule. This proposal is not a

major regulation; therefore, no Regulatory Impact Analysis is required.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612,

whenever an agency is required to publish a general notice of

rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make

available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis which

describes the impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., small

businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).

The Administrator or delegated representative may certify, however,

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

This rule, if promulgated, will not have an adverse economic impact

on small entities since its effect would be to reduce the overall costs

of EPA's hazardous waste regulations. Accordingly, I hereby certify

that this proposed regulation, if promulgated, will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This regulation, therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility

analysis.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

Information collection and record-keeping requirements associated

with this proposed rule have been approved by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1980 (Pub L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB

Control Number 2050-0053.

[[Page 19094]]

VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995,

EPA generally must prepare a written statement for rules with Federal

mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local, and tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. When such a statement is required for EPA

rules, under section 205 of the UMRA, EPA must identify and consider

alternatives, including the least costly, most cost-effective or least

burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. EPA

must select that alternative, unless the Administrator explains in the

final rule why it was not selected or it is inconsistent with law.

Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may significantly

or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it

must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency

plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small

governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in the development

of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental

mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them on compliance

with the regulatory requirements. The UMRA generally defines a

meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising them on compliance with the

regulatory requirements. The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate

for regulatory purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon

State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. EPA finds

that today's proposed delisting decision is deregulatory in nature and

does not impose any enforceable duty upon State, local or tribal

governments or the private sector. In addition, the proposed delisting

does not establish any regulatory requirements for small governments

and so does not require a small government agency plan under UMRA

section 203.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

Environmental Protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).

Dated: April 1, 1997.

Norman R. Niedergang,

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 it is proposed to add the

following waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as

follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and 260.22

Table 1.--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources

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

Facility Address Waste description

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

* * * * * *

*

General Motors Corporation......... Lake Orion, Michigan....... Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludge from

the chemical conversion coating (phosphate

coating) of aluminum (EPA Hazardous Waste No.

F019) generated at a maximum annual rate of

1,500 tons per year (or 1,500 cubic yards per

year), after (insert publication date of the

final rule), and disposed of in a Subtitle D

landfill.

(1) Verification Testing: GM must implement an

annual testing program to demonstrate, based

on the analysis of a minimum of four

representative samples, that the constituent

concentrations measured in the TCLP extract

(or OWEP, where appropriate) of the waste do

not exceed the following levels (mg/l).

Arsenic--4.5; Barium--180.; Chromium (total)--

9.; Cobalt--189.; Copper--126.; Nickel--63.;

Vanadium--18.; Zinc--900.; 1,2-

Dichloroethane--0.45; Ethylbenzene--63.; 4-

Methylphenol--16.2; Naphthalene--90.; Phenol--

1800.; Xylene--900. These levels are derived

by back-calculating from the delisting health-

based levels and a DAF of 90 for all

constituents detected in the TCLP and OWEP

extract of the petitioned waste.

(2) Changes in Operating Conditions: If GM

significantly changes the manufacturing or

treatment process or the chemicals used in

the manufacturing or treatment process, GM

may handle the WWTP filter press sludge

generated from the new process under this

exclusion after the facility has demonstrated

that the waste meets the levels set forth in

paragraph 1 and that no new hazardous

constituents listed in appendix VIII of part

261 have been introduced.

(3) Data Submittals: The data obtained through

annual verification testing or paragraph 2

must be submitted to U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W.

Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, within 60

days of sampling. Records of operating

conditions and analytical data must be

compiled, summarized, and maintained on site

for a minimum of five years and must be made

available for inspection. All data must be

accompanied by a signed copy of the

certification statement in Sec.

260.22(i)(12).

* * * * * *

*

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

[[Page 19095]]

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97-10110 Filed 4-17-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P