Hazardous Waste Management System; Proposed Exclusion for Identifying and Listing Hazardous Waste

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW-FRL-6455-2]

Hazardous Waste Management System; Proposed Exclusion for

Identifying and Listing Hazardous Waste

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.(EPA)

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ``the Agency'' or ``we'' in this preamble) is

proposing to grant a petition submitted by General Motors Corporation,

Lansing Car Assembly--Body Plant (GM) in Lansing, Michigan, to exclude

(or ``delist'') certain solid wastes generated by its wastewater

treatment plant (WWTP) from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in

Subpart D of Part 261.

GM submitted the petition under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22(a).

Section 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to

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

Section 260.22 (a) specifically provides generators the opportunity to

petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator

specific'' basis from the hazardous waste lists.

The Agency has tentatively decided to grant the petition based on

an evaluation of waste-specific information provided by GM. This

proposed decision, if finalized, conditionally excludes the petitioned

waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

We conclude that GM's petitioned waste is nonhazardous with respect

to the original listing criteria.

DATES: We will accept public comments on this proposed decision until

November 29, 1999. We will stamp comments postmarked after the close of

the comment period as ``late.'' These ``late'' comments may not be

considered in formulating a final decision.

Your request for a hearing must reach EPA by October 28, 1999. The

request must contain the information prescribed in Sec. 260.20(d).

iteria.

DATES: We will accept public comments on this proposed decision until

November 29, 1999. We will stamp comments postmarked after the close of

the comment period as ``late.'' These ``late'' comments may not be

considered in formulating a final decision.

Your request for a hearing must reach EPA by October 28, 1999. The

request must contain the information prescribed in Sec. 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Please send two copies of your comments to Peter

Ramanauskas, Waste Management Branch (DW-8J), Environmental Protection

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

Any person may request a hearing on this proposed decision by

filing a request with Robert Springer, Director, Waste, Pesticides and

Toxics Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson Blvd.,

Chicago, IL, 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Contact: For technical information concerning

this notice, contact Peter Ramanauskas at the address above or at 312-

886-7890. The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule is located

at the U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, and

is available for viewing from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding federal holidays. Call Peter Ramanauskas at (312)

886-7890 for appointments. The public may copy material from the

regulatory docket at $0.15 per page.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized

as follows:

I. Overview Information

A. What action is EPA proposing?

B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this delisting?

C. How will GM manage the waste if it is delisted?

D. When would EPA finalize the proposed delisting exclusion?

E. How would this action affect States?

II. Background

A. What is the history of the delisting program?

B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a

petitioner?

C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a

delisting petition?

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data

A. What waste did GM petition EPA to delist?

B

osed delisting exclusion?

E. How would this action affect States?

II. Background

A. What is the history of the delisting program?

B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a

petitioner?

C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a

delisting petition?

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data

A. What waste did GM petition EPA to delist?

B. What information and analyses did GM submit to support this

petition?

C. How does GM generate the petitioned waste?

D. How did GM sample and analyze the data in this petition?

E. What were the results of GM's analysis?

F. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?

G. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?

H. What did EPA conclude about GM's analysis?

I. What is EPA's final evaluation of this delisting petition?

IV. Conditions for Exclusion

A. What are the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous

constituents in the waste?

B. How frequently must GM test the waste?

C. What must GM do if the process changes?

D. What data must GM submit?

E. What happens if GM's waste fails to meet the conditions of

the exclusion?

V. Regulatory Impact

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

IX. Executive Order 12875

X. Executive Order 13045

XI. Executive Order 13084

XII. National Technology Transfer And Advancement Act

I. Overview Information

A. What Action Is EPA Proposing?

The EPA is proposing to grant GM's petition to have its wastewater

treatment sludge excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a

hazardous waste. We used a fate and transport model to predict the

concentration of hazardous constituents released from the petitioned

waste once it is disposed to evaluate the potential impact of the

petitioned waste on human health and the environment.

B. Why is EPA Proposing to Approve This Delisting?

to have its wastewater

treatment sludge excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a

hazardous waste. We used a fate and transport model to predict the

concentration of hazardous constituents released from the petitioned

waste once it is disposed to evaluate the potential impact of the

petitioned waste on human health and the environment.

B. Why is EPA Proposing to Approve This Delisting?

GM petitioned EPA to exclude, or delist, the wastewater treatment

sludge because GM believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the

RCRA criteria for which EPA listed it. GM also believes there are no

additional constituents or factors which could cause the wastes to be

hazardous.

Based on our review described below, we agree with the petitioner

that the waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original listing

criteria. If our review had found that the waste remained hazardous

based on the factors for which we originally listed the waste, we would

have proposed to deny the petition.

In reviewing this petition, we considered the original listing

criteria and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See Sec. 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C.

6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)-(4). We evaluated the petitioned waste

against the listing criteria and factors cited in Secs. 261.11(a)(2)

and (3).

We also evaluated the waste for other factors or criteria which

could cause the waste to be hazardous. These factors included: (1)

Whether the waste is considered acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity

s of 1984 (HSWA). See Sec. 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C.

6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)-(4). We evaluated the petitioned waste

against the listing criteria and factors cited in Secs. 261.11(a)(2)

and (3).

We also evaluated the waste for other factors or criteria which

could cause the waste to be hazardous. These factors included: (1)

Whether the waste is considered acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity

of the constituents; (3) the concentration of the constituents in the

waste; (4) the tendency of the hazardous constituents to migrate and to

bioaccumulate; (5) its persistence in the environment once released

from the waste; (6) plausible and specific types of management of the

petitioned waste; (7) the quantity of waste produced; and (8) waste

variability.

We believe that the petitioned waste does not meet the criteria for

which the waste was listed, and therefore, should be delisted. Our

tentative decision to delist waste from GM's Lansing facility is based

on the description of the process which generates the waste and the

analytical data submitted to support today's proposed rule.

C. How Will GM Manage the Waste If It Is Delisted?

If the petitioned waste is delisted, GM must dispose of it in a

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

state to manage industrial waste.

D. When Would EPA Finalize the Proposed Delisting Exclusion?

HSWA specifically requires the EPA to provide notice and an

opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final exclusion.

Thus, EPA will not make a final decision or grant an exclusion until it

has addressed all timely public comments (including those at public

hearings, if any) on today's proposal.

This rule, if finalized, will become effective upon demonstration

that the waste is in full compliance with land disposal restrictions

ice and an

opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final exclusion.

Thus, EPA will not make a final decision or grant an exclusion until it

has addressed all timely public comments (including those at public

hearings, if any) on today's proposal.

This rule, if finalized, will become effective upon demonstration

that the waste is in full compliance with land disposal restrictions.

Since this rule would reduce the existing requirements for persons

generating hazardous wastes, the regulated community does not need a

six-month period to come into compliance in accordance with Section

3010 of RCRA as amended by HSWA.

E. How Would This Action Affect the States?

Because EPA is issuing today's exclusion under the federal RCRA

delisting program, only states subject to federal RCRA delisting

provisions would be affected. This exclusion may not be effective in

states having a dual system that includes federal RCRA requirements and

their own requirements, or in states which have received our

authorization 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. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that

prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the state.

Because a dual system (that is, both federal (RCRA) and state (non-

RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's waste, we urge petitioners

to contact the state regulatory authority to establish the status of

their wastes under the state law.

EPA has also authorized some states to administer a delisting

program in place of the federal program, that is, to make state

delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those

authorized states. If GM transports the petitioned waste to or manages

the waste in any state with delisting authorization, GM must obtain

delisting authorization from that state before it can manage the waste

as nonhazardous in the state.

inister a delisting

program in place of the federal program, that is, to make state

delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those

authorized states. If GM transports the petitioned waste to or manages

the waste in any state with delisting authorization, GM must obtain

delisting authorization from that state before it can manage the waste

as nonhazardous in the state.

II. Background

A. What Is the History of the Delisting Program?

The EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from

nonspecific and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its

final and interim final regulations implementing Section 3001 of RCRA.

The EPA has amended this list several times and published it in 40 CFR

261.31 and Sec. 261.32.

We list these wastes as hazardous because: (1) They typically and

frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous

wastes identified in Subpart C of Part 261 (that is, ignitability,

corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or (2) they meet the criteria

for listing contained in Secs. 261.11(a)(2) or (3).

Individual waste streams may vary depending on raw materials,

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

in these regulations generally is hazardous, a specific waste from an

individual facility meeting the listing description may not be.

For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion

procedure, called delisting, which allows persons to demonstrate that

EPA should not regulate a specific waste from a particular generating

facility as a hazardous waste.

B. What Is a Delisting Petition, and What Does It Require of a

Petitioner?

ecific waste from an

individual facility meeting the listing description may not be.

For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion

procedure, called delisting, which allows persons to demonstrate that

EPA should not regulate a specific waste from a particular generating

facility as a hazardous waste.

B. What Is a Delisting Petition, and What Does It Require of a

Petitioner?

A delisting petition is a request from a facility to EPA or an

authorized state to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes.

The facility petitions the Agency because it does not consider the

wastes hazardous under RCRA regulations.

In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that wastes

generated at a particular facility do not meet any of the criteria for

listed wastes. The criteria for which EPA lists a waste are in 40 CFR

261.11 and in the background documents for the listed wastes.

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 Sec. 260.22, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f) and the background

documents for the listed wastes.)

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.

C. What Factors Must EPA Consider in Deciding Whether To Grant a

Delisting Petition?

ed warrant retaining it as a

hazardous waste. (See Sec. 260.22, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f) and the background

documents for the listed wastes.)

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.

C. What Factors Must EPA Consider in Deciding Whether To Grant a

Delisting Petition?

Besides considering the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a), 42 U.S.C.

6921(f), and in the background documents for the listed wastes, EPA

must consider any factors (including additional constituents) other

than those for which we listed the waste if these additional factors

could cause the waste to be hazardous. (See The Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984.)

EPA must also consider as hazardous wastes mixtures containing

listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or

disposing of listed hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and

(c)(2)(i), called the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,

respectively. These wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain

hazardous wastes until excluded.

The ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules are now final, after

having been vacated, remanded, and reinstated.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data

A. What Wastes Did GM Petition EPA To Delist?

In November 1998, GM petitioned EPA to exclude an annual volume of

1,250 cubic yards of F019 WWTP filter press sludge generated at its

Lansing Car Assembly--Body Plant located in Lansing, Michigan from the

list of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31. The EPA reviews a

petitioner's estimates and, on occasion, has requested a petitioner to

re-evaluate the estimated waste generation rate. EPA accepts GM's

estimate. F019 is defined as ``Wastewater treatment sludges from the

chemical conversion coating of

enerated at its

Lansing Car Assembly--Body Plant located in Lansing, Michigan from the

list of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31. The EPA reviews a

petitioner's estimates and, on occasion, has requested a petitioner to

re-evaluate the estimated waste generation rate. EPA accepts GM's

estimate. F019 is defined as ``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.'' GM

believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the criteria for which

F019 was listed (i.e., hexavalent chromium and complexed cyanide).

B. What Information and Analyses Did GM Submit To Support This

Petition?

To support its petition, GM submitted (1) descriptions and

schematic diagrams of its manufacturing and wastewater treatment

processes; (2) results of analyses for the characteristics of

ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity; (3) total constituent

analyses and Extraction Procedure for Oily Wastes (OWEP, SW-846 Method

1330A) analyses for the eight toxicity characteristic metals listed in

40 CFR 261.24, plus antimony, beryllium, cobalt, copper, hexavalent

chromium, nickel, tin, thallium, vanadium, and zinc; (4) total

constituent and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), SW-

846 Method 1311 analyses for 56 volatile and 117 semi-volatile organic

compounds and formaldehyde; (5) total constituent and TCLP analyses for

sulfide, cyanide, and fluoride; (6) total constituent and TCLP analyses

for organochlorine pesticides and chlorinated herbicides; and (7)

analysis for oil and grease, and percent solids.

C. How Does GM Generate the Petitioned Waste?

ocedure (TCLP), SW-

846 Method 1311 analyses for 56 volatile and 117 semi-volatile organic

compounds and formaldehyde; (5) total constituent and TCLP analyses for

sulfide, cyanide, and fluoride; (6) total constituent and TCLP analyses

for organochlorine pesticides and chlorinated herbicides; and (7)

analysis for oil and grease, and percent solids.

C. How Does GM Generate the Petitioned Waste?

GM's automobile assembly process includes the treatment of

automobile bodies by alkaline cleaning and phosphating in preparation

for a cathodic electrodeposited paint film (i.e., electrocoat). Prior

to phosphate coating, GM cleans, rinses, and conditions the automobile

bodies to promote phosphate crystal refinement. The automobile bodies

then pass through a 5,050 gallon zinc-nickel phosphate spray tank where

the phosphate coating solution is applied. 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 and rinsed again. The wastewater from the rinse spray overflows

to the general wastewater stream. 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 325 degrees Fahrenheit for 20 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 the assembly plant's general industrial waste

stream, electro-deposition process line waste stream, and deionized

water system waste stream

pplied, rinsed, and then

baked in an oven at 325 degrees Fahrenheit for 20 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 the assembly plant's general industrial waste

stream, electro-deposition process line waste stream, and deionized

water system waste stream. The general industrial waste stream is

composed primarily of car washing and plant clean-up and maintenance

water, wastewater generated by the phosphate process line, spraybooth

recirculation system blowdown, welding wastewater, non-contact cooling

water blowdown, boiler blowdown, and boiler condensate. The electro-

deposition waste stream is composed of a deionized water rinse overflow

stream and the deionized water system waste stream is composed of

deionized water system regenerate and deionized water reject.

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

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

has a surface skimmer for removing floating and settleable solids. The

wastewater discharges to one of three process wastewater holding tanks

where the general industrial waste stream blends with the electro-

deposition and deionized water waste streams. Sulfuric acid may be

added to the holding tanks as necessary to break metal chelates. A

cationic polymer coagulant is added to the wastewater as it is pumped

from the holding tanks to a blend basin. Caustic is added to the

wastewater within the blend basin to raise wastewater pH to 9.5-9.8.

From the blend basin, wastewater discharges to a flash mix tank where

an anionic polymer is added to floc the suspended solids. Two

clarifiers in parallel separate the liquid and solid phases of the

wastewater

agulant is added to the wastewater as it is pumped

from the holding tanks to a blend basin. Caustic is added to the

wastewater within the blend basin to raise wastewater pH to 9.5-9.8.

From the blend basin, wastewater discharges to a flash mix tank where

an anionic polymer is added to floc the suspended solids. Two

clarifiers in parallel separate the liquid and solid phases of the

wastewater. The settled sludge is pumped to either a sludge thickener

or a sludge conditioning tank and the supernatant passes through one of

two rapid sand filters operating in parallel and before discharging to

the Lansing Publicly Owned Treatment Works sewer system. In the sludge

thickener tank, the sludge is thickened with a sludge rake and then

pumped to the sludge conditioning tank. 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, is returned

to the WWTP influent wet well. After dewatering, the filter press cake

falls into 23 cubic yard roll-off boxes beneath the filter presses.

Once a roll-off box is filled, GM disposes of the waste in a land-based

management facility as a hazardous waste.

D. How Did GM Sample and Analyze the Data in This Petition?

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 1996.

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

four separate roll-off boxes on December 19, 1997 and January 29, 1998.

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. GM collected one composite and one grab sample of

sludge from each roll-off box during each sampling event

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

four separate roll-off boxes on December 19, 1997 and January 29, 1998.

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. GM collected one composite and one grab sample of

sludge from each roll-off box during each sampling event. Composite

samples consisted of four individual full-depth core grab samples mixed

together to form one sample. GM analyzed composite samples for semi-

volatile organic compounds, organochlorine pesticides, chlorinated

herbicides, and inorganic constituents and analyzed full-depth core

grab samples for volatile organic compounds (VOC). 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.

To quantify the total constituent and leachate concentrations, GM

used the following SW-846 Methods: 6020 for antimony, arsenic, barium,

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel, selenium,

silver, thallium, tin, vanadium, and zinc; 7471A for total mercury;

7470A for leachate mercury; 7196A for hexavalent chromium; 9013 for

total cyanide; 9012 for amenable cyanide; 9030A for sulfide; 8260A for

volatile organic compounds; 8270B for semi-volatile organic compounds;

8081 for organochlorine pesticides; and 8151 for chlorinated

herbicides. GM used the following SW-846 Methods for characteristic

testing of the samples: 7.3.3.2 for reactive cyanide; 7.3.4.2 for

reactive sulfide; 1010 for ignitability; and 9045C for corrosivity. GM

used method 9071 to determine oil and grease content. Based on results

of 149,000 mg/kg to 193,000 mg/kg, GM used the Extraction Procedure for

Oily Wastes (OWEP, SW-846 Method 1330A) and the Toxicity Characteristic

Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW-846 Method 1311), as described below, to

determine leachate concentrations. GM used EPA

e sulfide; 1010 for ignitability; and 9045C for corrosivity. GM

used method 9071 to determine oil and grease content. Based on results

of 149,000 mg/kg to 193,000 mg/kg, GM used the Extraction Procedure for

Oily Wastes (OWEP, SW-846 Method 1330A) and the Toxicity Characteristic

Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW-846 Method 1311), as described below, to

determine leachate concentrations. GM used EPA

Methods 9056 & 340.2 to detect fluoride, Association of Official

Analytical Chemists (AOAC) Method 931.08 to detect formaldehyde, and

EPA Method 160.3 to determine percent solids.

E. What Were the Results of GM's Analysis?

Table 1 presents the maximum total and leachate concentrations for

18 metals, total cyanide, total sulfide, reactive sulfide, and

fluoride. Reactive cyanide was not detected in any of the samples.

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

[WWTP Filter Cake]

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

Total constituent TCLP leachate

Inorganic constituents analyses (mg/kg) analyses (mg/l)

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

Antimony.................... 7.4 0.053

Arsenic..................... 7.2 0.048

Barium...................... 727.0 0.239

Beryllium................... 1.1 0.013

Cadmium..................... 1.2 0.009

Chromium (total)............ 1820.0 0.164

Chromium (hexavalent)....... 0.158 0.003

Cobalt...................... 12.8 0.038

Copper...................... 523.0 0.242

Lead........................ 10800.0 0.794

Mercury..................... 0.15 0.0075

Nickel...................... 3240.0 17.823

Selenium.................... 4.6 0.044

Tin......................... 2310.0 35.441

Vanadium.................... 43.9 0.348

Zinc........................ 17400.0 3.941

Cyanide (total)............. 2.34 0.0122

Sulfide (total)............. 1780.0 1.53

Fluoride...................

ead........................ 10800.0 0.794

Mercury..................... 0.15 0.0075

Nickel...................... 3240.0 17.823

Selenium.................... 4.6 0.044

Tin......................... 2310.0 35.441

Vanadium.................... 43.9 0.348

Zinc........................ 17400.0 3.941

Cyanide (total)............. 2.34 0.0122

Sulfide (total)............. 1780.0 1.53

Fluoride.................... 403.0 0.898

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

\1\ These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent

found in any one sample. These levels do not necessarily represent the

specific levels found in one sample.

GM analyzed the samples of petitioned waste for 173 volatile and

semi-volatile organic compounds. Table 2 presents the maximum total and

leachate concentrations for all detected organic constituents in GM's

waste samples.

Table 2.--Maximum Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations \1\

[WWTP Filter Cake]

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

Total constituent TCLP leachate

Organic constituents analyses (Mg/kg) analyses (mg/l)

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

Acetone........................ -6 for each

hazardous constituent of concern. For the petitioned waste, none of the

calculated values at the receptor well exceeded the health based level

(HBL) at the target risk level of 1 x 10-6. The HBL was

then used to back calculate the maximum allowable concentration in the

waste extract which would not exceed protective levels at the receptor

well for each constituent of concern.

We used GM's maximum annual waste volume to derive a petition-

specific dilution-attenuation factor (DAF) of 96. In our evaluation, we

used a DAF of 96 times the health based level to determine the maximum

allowable leachate concentration for GM's waste (see Table 3).

centration in the

waste extract which would not exceed protective levels at the receptor

well for each constituent of concern.

We used GM's maximum annual waste volume to derive a petition-

specific dilution-attenuation factor (DAF) of 96. In our evaluation, we

used a DAF of 96 times the health based level to determine the maximum

allowable leachate concentration for GM's waste (see Table 3).

Table 3.--EPACML: Maximum Allowable Leachate Concentrations

[WWTP Filter Cake]

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

TCLP leachate analyses Levels of regulatory

Inorganic and Organic Constituents (mg/l) concern \1\(mg/l)

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

Antimony........................................................ 0.053 0.576

Arsenic......................................................... 0.048 4.8

Barium.......................................................... 0.239 100.0

Beryllium....................................................... 0.013 0.384

Cadmium......................................................... 0.009 0.48

Chromium........................................................ 0.164 5.0

Cobalt.......................................................... 0.038 201.6

Copper.......................................................... 0.242 124.8

Lead............................................................ 0.794 1.44

Mercury......................................................... 0.0075 0.192

Nickel.......................................................... 17.823 67.2

Selenium........................................................ 0.044 1.0

Silver.......................................................... 0.028 5.0

Thallium........................................................ 0.020 0.192

Tin............................................................. 35.441 2016.0

Vanadium.......................................................

.................. 17.823 67.2

Selenium........................................................ 0.044 1.0

Silver.......................................................... 0.028 5.0

Thallium........................................................ 0.020 0.192

Tin............................................................. 35.441 2016.0

Vanadium........................................................ 0.348 28.8

Zinc............................................................ 3.941 960.0

Cyanide (total)................................................. 0.0122 19.2

Fluoride........................................................ 0.898 384.0

Acetone......................................................... 0.170 336.0

Beta-BHC........................................................ 0.00005 0.00454

m,p-Cresol...................................................... 0.0223 19.2

DDT............................................................. 0.000045 0.024

1,1-Dichloroethane.............................................. 0.0087 0.0864

Ethylbenzene.................................................... 0.0044 67.2

Formaldehyde.................................................... 0.508 672.0

Phenol.......................................................... 0.3390 1920.0

Toluene......................................................... 0.0031 96.0

1,1,1-Trichloroethane........................................... 0.0494 19.2

Xylenes......................................................... 0.0399 960.0

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

\1\ See ``Docket Report on Health-Based Levels and Solubilities Used in the Evaluation of Delisting Petitions,''

May 1996, located in the RCRA public docket for today's notice.

Note: See the RCRA public docket for today's notice for the specific reference doses and the calculation of the

health-based levels of regulatory concern.

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

\1\ See ``Docket Report on Health-Based Levels and Solubilities Used in the Evaluation of Delisting Petitions,''

May 1996, located in the RCRA public docket for today's notice.

Note: See the RCRA public docket for today's notice for the specific reference doses and the calculation of the

health-based levels of regulatory concern.

For inorganic constituents, the maximum reported leachate

concentrations for metals, cyanide, and fluoride in the WWTP filter

press sludge were well below the health-based levels of concern used in

decision-making for delisting. We also evaluated the potential hazards

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

samples. The maximum detected leachate concentrations were

significantly below the respective levels of concern. We believe that

it is inappropriate to evaluate non-detectable concentrations of a

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

value was obtained using the appropriate analytical method.

G. What Other Factors Did EPA Consider in Its Evaluation?

We also considered the applicability of ground-water monitoring

data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this case, we

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, we did not request ground water

monitoring data from GM

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, we did not request ground water

monitoring data from GM.

During the evaluation of GM's petition, we also considered the

potential impact of the petitioned waste via air emission and storm

water run-off.

We evaluated the exposure to waste particles and volatile emissions

released from the surface of an open landfill. We considered exposure

to hazardous constituents through (1) inhalation of particulates and

absorption into the lungs; (2) ingestion of particulates eliminated

from respiratory passages and subsequently swallowed; (3) inhalation of

gas from the release of volatile compounds; and (4) air deposition of

particulates and subsequent ingestion of the soil/waste mixture.

The estimated levels of the hazardous constituents of concern

released into the air are below health-based levels for ingestion and

inhalation levels of concern, and the EPA Concentration-Based Exemption

Criteria for Soils (57 FR 21450, May 20, 1992), with the singular

exception of formaldehyde. The concentration of formaldehyde in all

waste samples exceeded a 1 x 10-6 cancer risk level for

inhalation with the maximum value estimated at 3.58 x 10-6.

Formaldehyde is present in resins used in the automotive painting

process

nhalation levels of concern, and the EPA Concentration-Based Exemption

Criteria for Soils (57 FR 21450, May 20, 1992), with the singular

exception of formaldehyde. The concentration of formaldehyde in all

waste samples exceeded a 1 x 10-6 cancer risk level for

inhalation with the maximum value estimated at 3.58 x 10-6.

Formaldehyde is present in resins used in the automotive painting

process. The maximum formaldehyde levels in the waste are deemed

acceptable for the following reasons: (1) Formaldehyde is not a

constituent for which this waste was listed; (2) the estimated cancer

risk from the maximum formaldehyde level was still within the

10-4 to 10-6 range; (3) the volatile emissions

model may have been overly conservative by ignoring competing fate and

transport phenomenon; and (4) formaldehyde was the only constituent

exceeding target risk levels. Although the waste as tested is deemed

acceptable, we are imposing a limit on the maximum allowable

concentration of formaldehyde to ensure that risks posed by the waste

do not increase. A delisting limit of 2100 mg/kg total formaldehyde

corresponds with a cancer risk of 5 x 10-6 at the receptor,

based on the modeling in this evaluation. This concentration is well

above the average and maximum values observed in the current samples

evaluated (921 and 1520 mg/kg, respectively).

We believe that exposure to airborne contaminants from GM's

petitioned wastes is unlikely. The results of this worse-case analysis

suggested no substantial hazard to human health from airborne exposure

to constituents in GM's wastewater treatment sludge.

For a description of EPA's assessment of the potential impact of

airborne dispersion from GM's waste, see the RCRA public docket for

today's proposed rule.

We evaluated the potential hazards resulting from exposure to

hazardous constituents released into surface water as a result of land

disposal of the wastewater treatment sludge

xposure

to constituents in GM's wastewater treatment sludge.

For a description of EPA's assessment of the potential impact of

airborne dispersion from GM's waste, see the RCRA public docket for

today's proposed rule.

We evaluated the potential hazards resulting from exposure to

hazardous constituents released into surface water as a result of land

disposal of the wastewater treatment sludge. We investigated the

potential hazard from exposure of ecological receptors to dissolved

hazardous constituents in a small stream considered large enough to

support a fishery. We also evaluated the potential hazard from human

consumption of aquatic organisms from the stream. A larger stream was

evaluated based on the same criteria and the potential hazards from

ingestion of contaminated drinking water. The larger stream size was

deemed large enough to support a public water supply. We assumed an

amount of uncovered waste would be exposed to soil erosion losses

through run-off. We modeled soil containing waste particles to flow

into a nearby stream followed by complete dissolution of hazardous

constituents into the water column. No resultant concentrations of

hazardous constituents in the surface water exceeded water quality

criteria for ecological or human exposures.

Based on this worst case evaluation, we conclude that GM's

wastewater treatment sludge is not a substantial or potential hazard to

human health and the environment via surface water exposure.

For a description of EPA's assessment of the potential impact of

runoff from GM's waste, see the RCRA public docket for today's proposed

rule.

H. What Did EPA Conclude About GM's Analysis?

After reviewing GM's processes, the EPA concludes that (1) no

hazardous constituents of concern are likely to be present in GM's

waste; and (2) the petitioned waste does not exhibit any of the

characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. See 40 CFR

261.21, 261.22, and 261.23, respectively.

ublic docket for today's proposed

rule.

H. What Did EPA Conclude About GM's Analysis?

After reviewing GM's processes, the EPA concludes that (1) no

hazardous constituents of concern are likely to be present in GM's

waste; and (2) the petitioned waste does not exhibit any of the

characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. See 40 CFR

261.21, 261.22, and 261.23, respectively.

I. What Is EPA's Final Evaluation of This Delisting Petition?

The descriptions of the GM hazardous waste process and analytical

characterization, with the proposed verification testing requirements

(as discussed later in this notice), provide a reasonable basis for EPA

to grant the exclusion.

We have reviewed the sampling procedures used by GM and have

determined they satisfy EPA criteria for collecting representative

samples of constituent concentrations in the wastewater treatment

sludge.

We believe the data submitted in support of the petition show that

GM's waste will not pose a threat when disposed of in a Subtitle D

landfill. We therefore, propose to grant GM an exclusion for its WWTP

sludge.

If we finalize the proposed rule, the Agency will no longer

regulate the petitioned waste under 40 CFR Parts 262 through 268 and

the permitting standards of Part 270.

IV. Conditions for Exclusion

A. What Are the Maximum Allowable Concentrations of Hazardous

Constituents in the Waste?

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): Antimony--0.576; Arsenic--4.8; Barium--100;

Beryllium--0.384; Cadmium--0.48; Chromium--5; Cobalt--201.6; Copper--

124.8; Lead--1.44; Mercury--0.192; Nickel--67.2; Selenium--1; Silver--

5; Thallium--0.192; Tin--2016; Vanadium--28.8; Zinc--960; Cyanide--

19.2; Fluoride--384; Acetone--336; m,p,-Cresol--19.2; 1,1-

Dichloroethane--0.0864; Ethylbenzene--67.2; Formaldehyde--672; Phenol--

1920; Toluene--96; 1,1,1-Trichloroethane--19.2; Xylene--960; Beta-BHC--

0.00454; DDT

m--0.48; Chromium--5; Cobalt--201.6; Copper--

124.8; Lead--1.44; Mercury--0.192; Nickel--67.2; Selenium--1; Silver--

5; Thallium--0.192; Tin--2016; Vanadium--28.8; Zinc--960; Cyanide--

19.2; Fluoride--384; Acetone--336; m,p,-Cresol--19.2; 1,1-

Dichloroethane--0.0864; Ethylbenzene--67.2; Formaldehyde--672; Phenol--

1920; Toluene--96; 1,1,1-Trichloroethane--19.2; Xylene--960; Beta-BHC--

0.00454; DDT--0.024.

GM may not dispose of the excluded waste in a Subtitle D landfill

until it has demonstrated compliance with land disposal restrictions of

11.0 mg/l for nickel and 0.75 mg/l for lead as measured in a TCLP

extract.

The total concentration of formaldehyde in the waste must not

exceed 2100 mg/kg.

Analysis for determining reactivity must be added to the required

verification testing when an EPA-approved method becomes available.

B. How Frequently Must GM Test the Waste?

GM must demonstrate on an annual basis that the constituents of

concern in the petitioned waste do not exceed the levels of concern in

Section IV.A above. In addition, GM must demonstrate compliance with

land disposal restrictions for Nickel and Lead on a monthly basis. GM

must analyze four representative samples of the WWTP filter press

sludge using methods with appropriate detection levels and quality

control procedures.

C. What Must GM Do If the Process Changes?

If GM significantly changes the manufacturing or treatment process

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

not handle the WWTP filter press sludge generated from the new process

under this exclusion until it has demonstrated to the EPA that the

waste meets the levels set in Section IV.A and that no new hazardous

constituents listed in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR Part 261 have been

introduced. GM must manage wastes generated after the process change as

hazardous waste until GM has received written approval from EPA.

D. What Data Must GM Submit?

rated from the new process

under this exclusion until it has demonstrated to the EPA that the

waste meets the levels set in Section IV.A and that no new hazardous

constituents listed in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR Part 261 have been

introduced. GM must manage wastes generated after the process change as

hazardous waste until GM has received written approval from EPA.

D. What Data Must GM Submit?

GM must submit the data obtained through annual verification

testing to U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604,

within 60 days of sampling. GM must compile, summarize, and maintain on

site for a minimum of five years records of operating conditions and

analytical data. GM 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).

E. What Happens If GM Fails To Meet the Conditions of the Exclusion?

If GM violates the terms and conditions established in the

exclusion, the Agency may start procedures to withdraw the exclusion.

If the annual testing of the waste does not meet the delisting

levels described in Section IV.A above, GM must notify the Agency

according to Section IV.D. The exclusion will be suspended and the

waste managed as hazardous until GM has received written approval for

the exclusion from the Agency. GM may provide sampling results which

support the continuation of the delisting exclusion.

The EPA has the authority under RCRA and the Administrative

Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 551 (1978) et seq. (APA), to reopen a

delisting decision if we receive new information indicating that the

conditions of this exclusion have been violated.

V. Regulatory Impact

for

the exclusion from the Agency. GM may provide sampling results which

support the continuation of the delisting exclusion.

The EPA has the authority under RCRA and the Administrative

Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 551 (1978) et seq. (APA), to reopen a

delisting decision if we receive new information indicating that the

conditions of this exclusion have been violated.

V. Regulatory Impact

Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of

the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory

actions.

The proposal to grant an exclusion is not significant, 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, thus enabling a facility

to manage its waste as nonhazardous.

Because there is no additional impact from today's proposed rule,

this proposal would not be a significant regulation, and no cost/

benefit assessment is required. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has also exempted this rule from the requirement for OMB review

under Section (6) of Executive Order 12866.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under 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 (that is, small businesses, small

organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). No regulatory

flexibility analysis is required, however, if the Administrator or

delegated representative certifies that the rule will not have any

impact on small entities

pare and make available for public

comment a regulatory flexibility analysis which describes the impact of

the rule on small entities (that is, small businesses, small

organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). No regulatory

flexibility analysis is required, however, if the Administrator or

delegated representative certifies that the rule will not have any

impact on 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 and would be limited to one

facility. Accordingly, the Agency certifies 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 (Public Law 96-511, 44 USC 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned

OMB Control Number 2050-0053.

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

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, EPA 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 federal mandate for regulatory

purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon state, local, or

tribal governments or the private sector.

The EPA finds that today's delisting decision is deregulatory in

nature and does not impose any enforceable duty on any state, local, or

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

delisting decision does not establish any regulatory requirements for

small governments and so does not require a small government agency

plan under UMRA section 203.

IX. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute and that creates a

any state, local, or

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

delisting decision does not establish any regulatory requirements for

small governments and so does not require a small government agency

plan under UMRA section 203.

IX. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute and that creates a

mandate upon a state, local, or tribal government, unless the federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by those governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA

must provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of

the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected

state, local, and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns,

copies of written communications from the governments, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive

Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal

governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development

of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''

Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these

entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive

Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

X. Executive Order 13045

The Executive Order 13045 is entitled ``Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,

1997). This order applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) is

economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and

cordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive

Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

X. Executive Order 13045

The Executive Order 13045 is entitled ``Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,

1997). This order applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) is

economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and

(2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a

disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets

both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or

safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the

planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and

reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This

proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this is

not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by

Executive Order 12866.

XI. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects

that communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the

federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments.

If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office

Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation

incurred by the tribal governments.

If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office

Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation.

In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments ``to meaningful and timely input'' in the

development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or

uniquely affect their communities of Indian tribal governments. This

action does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian

Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive

Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

XII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Under Section 12(d) if the National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act, the Agency is directed to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (for example,

materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business

practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus

standard bodies. Where EPA does not use available and potentially

applicable voluntary consensus standards, the Act requires that Agency

to provide Congress, through the OMB, an explanation of the reasons for

not using such standards.

This rule does not establish any new technical standards, and thus

the Agency has no need to consider the use of voluntary consensus

standards in developing this final rule.

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).

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

* * * * * *

*

General Motors Corporation........... Lansing, 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

1,250 cubic yards per year and disposed of in a

Subtitle D landfill, after (insert publication

date of the final rule).

1. Delisting Levels: (A) The constituent

concentrations measured in the TCLP extract may

not exceed the following levels (mg/L):

Antimony--0.576; Arsenic--4.8; Barium--100;

Beryllium--0.384; Cadmium--0.48; Chromium

(total)-5; Cobalt--201.6; Copper--124.8; Lead--

1.44; Mercury--0.192; Nickel--67.2; Selenium--

1; Silver--5; Thallium--0.192; Tin--2016;

Vanadium--28.8; Zinc--960; Cyanide--19.2;

Fluoride--384; Acetone--336; m,p-Cresol--19.2;

1,1--Dichloroethane--0.0864; Ethylbenzene--

67.2; Formaldehyde--672; Phenol--1920; Toluene--

96; 1,1,1--Trichloroethane--19.2; Xylene--960;

Beta-BHC--0.00454; DDT--0.024.

(B) The total concentration of formaldehyde in

the waste may not exceed 2100 mg/kg.

(C) Analysis for determining reactivity must be

added to verification testing when an EPA-

approved method becomes available.

2. Verification Testing: GM must implement an

annual testing program to demonstrate that the

constituent concentrations measured in the TCLP

extract (or OWEP, where appropriate) of the

waste do not exceed the delisting levels

established in Condition (1). GM must also

demonstrate compliance with LDR treatment

standards for Nickel and Lead on a monthly

basis.

3. Changes in Operating Conditions: If GM

significantly changes the manufacturing or

treatment process or the chemicals used in the

manufacturing or treatment process, GM must

notify the EPA of the changes in writing

aste do not exceed the delisting levels

established in Condition (1). GM must also

demonstrate compliance with LDR treatment

standards for Nickel and Lead on a monthly

basis.

3. Changes in Operating Conditions: If GM

significantly changes the manufacturing or

treatment process or the chemicals used in the

manufacturing or treatment process, GM must

notify the EPA of the changes in writing. GM

must handle wastes generated after the process

change as hazardous until GM has demonstrated

that the wastes meet the delisting levels set

forth in Condition 1 and that no new hazardous

constituents listed in Appendix VIII of Part

261 have been introduced and GM has received

written approval from EPA.

4. Data Submittals: GM must submit the data

obtained through annual verification testing or

as required by other conditions of this rule to

U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd. (DW-8J),

Chicago, IL 60604, within 60 days of sampling.

GM must compile, summarize, and maintain on

site for a minimum of five years records of

operating conditions and analytical data. GM

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, GM 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 in

Condition (1) is at a level in the leachate

higher than the delisting level established in

Condition (1), or is at a level in the ground

water or soil higher than the level predicted

by the CML model, then GM must report such

data, in writing, to the Regional Administrator

within 10 days of first possessing or being

made aware of that data.

te

indicating that any constituent identified in

Condition (1) is at a level in the leachate

higher than the delisting level established in

Condition (1), or is at a level in the ground

water or soil higher than the level predicted

by the CML model, then GM must report such

data, in writing, to the Regional Administrator

within 10 days of first possessing or being

made aware of that data.

(b) Based on the information described in

paragraph (a) and any other information

received from any source, the Regional

Administrator will make a preliminary

determination as to whether the reported

information requires Agency action to protect

human health or the environment. Further action

may include suspending, or revoking the

exclusion, or other appropriate response

necessary to protect human health and the

environment.

(c) If the Regional Administrator determines

that the reported information does require

Agency action, the Regional Administrator will

notify GM 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 GM

with an opportunity to present information as

to why the proposed Agency action is not

necessary or to suggest an alternative action.

GM shall have 10 days from the date of the

Regional Administrator's notice to present the

information.

(d) If after 10 days GM presents no further

information, the Regional Administrator will

issue a final written determination describing

the Agency actions that are necessary to

protect human health or the environment. Any

required action described in the Regional

Administrator's determination shall become

effective immediately, unless the Regional

Administrator provides otherwise.

* * * * * *

*

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

[FR Doc. 99-26662 Filed 10-12-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P