Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules 9781

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106

Stat. 5039.

2. From 5 a.m. on June 4, 2001,

through 8 p.m. on September 30, 2002,

§ 117.1051 is temporarily amended by

adding paragraph (d)(4) as follows:

§ 117.1051 Lake Washington Ship Canal.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(4) From 5 a.m. on June 4, 2001, to 8

p.m. September 30, 2002, the Ballard

Bridge, mile 1.1, need not open both

draw leaves for the passage of vessels,

including those engaged in towing

operations, except at 5 a.m., 12:30 p.m.,

and 8 p.m., if at least five hours notice

is given.

* * * * *

Dated: February 2, 2001.

Erroll Brown,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Thirteenth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 01–3550 Filed 2–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD105–3054b; FRL–6916–5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Maryland; Approval of Opacity

Recodifications and Revisions to

Visible Emissions COMAR 26.11.06.02

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revisions submitted by the State of

Maryland for the purposes of

recodifying Maryland’s general opacity

regulations and for providing

procedures whereby a source may apply

for and be granted a federally

enforceable alternative visible emission

standard. In the Final Rules section of

this Federal Register, EPA is approving

the State’s SIP submittals as a direct

final rule without prior proposal

because the Agency views these as

noncontroversial submittals and

anticipates no adverse comments. A

more detailed description of the state

submittals and EPA’s evaluation are

included in a Technical Support

Document (TSD) prepared in support of

this rulemaking action. A copy of the

TSD is available, upon request, from the

EPA Regional Office listed in the

ADDRESSES section of this document. If

no adverse comments are received in

response to this action, no further

activity is contemplated. If EPA receives

adverse comments, the direct final rule

will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by March 14, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Denis Lohman, Acting

Chief, Technical Assessment Branch,

Mailcode 3AP22, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19103. Copies of the documents relevant

to this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air Protection Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and

the Maryland Department of the

Environment, 2500 Broening Highway,

Baltimore, Maryland 21224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ruth E. Knapp, (215) 814–2191, at the

EPA Region III address above, or by email at knapp.ruth@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

further information regarding the

recodifications to Maryland’s general

opacity regulations and the procedures

by which a source may apply for and be

granted an alternative visible emission

standard, please see the information

provided in the direct final action, with

the same title, located in the ‘‘Rules and

Regulations’’ section of this Federal

Register publication.

Dated: November 30, 2000.

Bradley M. Campbell,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 01–3379 Filed 2–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[FRL–6932–8]

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 or Agency) today is

proposing to grant a petition submitted

by BMW Manufacturing Corporation,

Greer, South Carolina (BMW), to

exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) a certain hazardous

waste from the list of hazardous wastes.

BMW will generate the petitioned waste

by treating wastewater from BMW’s

automobile assembly plant when

aluminum is one of the metals used to

manufacture automobile bodies. The

waste so generated is a wastewater

treatment sludge that meets the

definition of F019. BMW petitioned

EPA to grant a generator-specific

delisting, because BMW believes that its

F019 waste does not meet the criteria for

which this type of waste was listed. EPA

reviewed all of the waste-specific

information provided by BMW,

performed calculations, and determined

that the waste could be disposed in a

landfill without harming human health

and the environment. Today’s proposed

rule proposes to grant BMW’s petition to

delist its F019 waste, and requests

public comment on the proposed

decision. If the proposed delisting

becomes a final delisting, BMW’s

petitioned waste will no longer be

classified as F019, and will not be

subject to regulation as a hazardous

waste under Subtitle C of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

The waste will still be subject to local,

State, and Federal regulations for

nonhazardous solid wastes.

DATES: EPA is requesting public

comments on this proposed decision.

Comments will be accepted until March

29, 2001. Comments postmarked after

the close of the comment period will be

stamped ‘‘late.’’ These ‘‘late’’ comments

may not be considered in formulating a

final decision.

Any person may request a hearing on

this proposed decision by filing a

request with Richard D. Green, Director

of the Waste Management Division,

EPA, Region 4, whose address appears

below, by February 27, 2001. The

request must contain the information

prescribed in section 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Send two copies of your

comments to Jewell Grubbs, Chief,

RCRA Enforcement and Compliance

Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta

Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Send one copy

to Cindy Carter, Appalachia III District,

South Carolina Department of Health

and Environmental Control, 975C North

Church Street, Spartanburg, South

Carolina 29303. Identify your comments

at the top with this regulatory docket

number: R4–00–01–BMWP. Comments

may also be submitted by e-mail to

sophianopoulos.judy@epa.gov. If files

are attached, please identify the format.

9782 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules

1Although no one produces hazardous waste

intentionally, many industrial processes result in

the production of hazardous waste, as well as useful

products and services. A ‘‘generating facility’’ is a

facility in which hazardous waste is produced, and

a ‘‘generator’’ is a person who produces hazardous

waste or causes hazardous waste to be produced at

a particular place. Please see 40 CFR 260.10 for

regulatory definitions of ‘‘generator,’’ ‘‘facility,’’

‘‘person,’’ and other terms related to hazardous

waste, and 40 CFR part 262 for regulatory

requirements for generators.

Requests for a hearing should be

addressed to Richard D. Green, Director,

Waste Management Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal

Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta,

Georgia 30303.

The RCRA regulatory docket for this

proposed rule is located at the EPA

Library, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta

Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303, and is available

for viewing from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding

Federal holidays. The docket contains

the petition, all information submitted

by the petitioner, and all information

used by EPA to evaluate the petition.

The public may copy material from

any regulatory docket at no cost for the

first 100 pages, and at a cost of $0.15 per

page for additional copies.

Copies of the petition are available

during normal business hours at the

following addresses for inspection and

copying: U.S. EPA, Region 4, Library,

Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61

Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia

30303, (404) 562–8190; and Appalachia

III District, South Carolina Department

of Health and Environmental Control,

975C North Church Street, Spartanburg,

South Carolina 29303. The EPA, Region

4, Library is located near the Five Points

MARTA station in Atlanta. The

Appalachia III District Office of the

South Carolina Department of Health

and Environmental Control is located on

North Church Street between Whitney

Road and Mendala, near the

Spartanburg Regional Medical Center.

Documents are also available for

viewing and downloading at the Web

Site of EPA, Region 4: http://

www.epa.gov/region4/index.html At

this site, click on ‘‘Delisting,’’ and then

on individual documents to download

them.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general and technical information about

this proposed rule, contact Judy

Sophianopoulos, South Enforcement

and Compliance Section, (Mail Code

4WD–RCRA), RCRA Enforcement and

Compliance Branch, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth

Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303,

(404) 562–8604, or call, toll free, (800)

241–1754, and leave a message, with

your name and phone number, for Ms.

Sophianopoulos to return your call.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

contents of today’s preamble are listed

in the following outline:

I. Background

A. What Laws and Regulations Give EPA

the Authority to Delist Wastes?

B. How did EPA Evaluate this Petition?

1. What methods for determining delisting

levels did EPA use in the past?

What is the EPACML model and how is it

used to calculate delisting levels?

2. What is the DRAS that uses the new

EPACMTP model to calculate not only

delisting levels, but also to evaluate the

effects of the waste on human health and

the environment?

3. Why is the EPACMTP an improvement

over the EPACML?

4. Has the EPACMTP been formally

reviewed?

5. Has EPA modified the EPACMTP as

used in the proposed Hazardous Waste

Identification Rule (HWIR)?

6. What modifications to the DRAS have

been made since the proposal in 65 FR

58015–58031, September 27, 2000?

7. What methods is EPA proposing to use

to determine delisting levels for this

petitioned waste?

II. Disposition of Delisting Petition

A. Summary of Delisting Petition

Submitted by BMW Manufacturing

Corporation, Greer, South Carolina

(BMW)

B. What Delisting Levels Did EPA Obtain

with the EPACML Model and with

DRAS?

C. How Did EPA Use the Multiple

Extraction Procedure (MEP) to Evaluate

This Delisting Petition?

D. Conclusion

III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion

Will this Rule Apply in All States?

IV. Effective Date

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

VI. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

VII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement and Fairness Act

IX. Executive Order 12866

X. Executive Order 13045

XI. Executive Order 13084

XII. Submission to Congress and General

Accounting Office

XIII. Executive Order 13132

I. Background

A. What Laws and Regulations Give EPA

the Authority To Delist Wastes?

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 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32.

These wastes are listed as hazardous

because they 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 section 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, sections

260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion

procedure, allowing persons to

demonstrate that a specific waste from

a particular generating facility 1 should

not be regulated as a hazardous waste.

To have their wastes excluded,

petitioners must show, first, that wastes

generated at their facilities do not meet

any of the criteria for which the wastes

were listed. See section 260.22(a) and

the background documents for the listed

wastes. Second, the Administrator must

determine, where he/she has a

reasonable basis to believe that factors

(including additional constituents) other

than those for which the waste was

listed could cause the waste to be a

hazardous waste, that such factors do

not warrant retaining the waste as a

hazardous waste. Accordingly, a

petitioner also must demonstrate that

the waste does not exhibit any of the

hazardous waste characteristics (i.e.,

ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and

toxicity), and must present sufficient

information for the EPA to determine

whether the waste contains any other

toxicants at hazardous levels. See

section 260.22(a), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and

the background documents for the listed

wastes. 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 wastes continue to

be nonhazardous based on the

hazardous waste characteristics (i.e.,

characteristics which may be

promulgated subsequent to a delisting

decision.)

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

sections 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i),

referred to as the ‘‘mixture’’ and

‘‘derived-from’’ rules, respectively. Such

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules 9783

2EPA will ask for and respond to public comment

before making a decision on whether the reuse that

BMW may propose is at least as protective of

human health and the environment as disposal in

a Subtitle D landfill.

3For more information on DRAS and EPAMCTP,

please see 65 FR 75637–75651, December 4, 2000

and 65 FR 58015–58031, September 27, 2000. The

December 4, 2000 Federal Register discusses the

key enhancements of the EPACMTP and the details

are provided in the background documents to the

proposed 1995 Hazardous Waste Identification Rule

(HWIR) (60 FR 66344, December 21, 1995). The

background documents are available through the

RCRA HWIR FR proposal docket (60 FR 66344,

December 21, 1995)

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/derivedfrom’’ rules and remanded them to the

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). These rules

became final on October 30, 1992, 57 FR

49278), and should be consulted for

more information regarding waste

mixtures and solid wastes derived from

treatment, storage, or disposal of a

hazardous waste. The mixture and

derived-from rules are codified in 40

CFR 261.3, paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and

(c)(2)(i). EPA plans to address waste

mixtures and residues when the final

portion of the Hazardous Waste

Identification Rule (HWIR) is

promulgated.

On October 10, 1995, the

Administrator delegated to the Regional

Administrators the authority to evaluate

and approve or deny petitions

submitted in accordance with sections

260.20 and 260.22, by generators within

their Regions (National Delegation of

Authority 8–19), in States not yet

authorized to administer a delisting

program in lieu of the Federal program.

On March 11, 1996, the Regional

Administrator of EPA, Region 4,

redelegated delisting authority to the

Director of the Waste Management

Division (Regional Delegation of

Authority 8–19).

B. How Did EPA Evaluate This Petition?

This petition requests a delisting for

a hazardous waste listed as F019. In

making the initial delisting

determination, EPA evaluated the

petitioned waste against the listing

criteria and factors cited in sections

261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this

review, the EPA agrees with the

petitioner that the waste is

nonhazardous with respect to the

original listing criteria. (If EPA had

found, based on this review, that the

waste remained hazardous based on the

factors for which the waste 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 such additional factors

could cause the waste to be hazardous.

See section 260.22(a) and (d). The EPA

considered whether the waste is acutely

toxic, and considered the toxicity of the

constituents, the concentration of the

constituents in the waste, their tendency

to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their

persistence in the environment once

released from the waste, plausible and

specific types of management of the

petitioned waste, the quantities of waste

generated, and waste variability.

1. What Methods for Determining

Delisting Levels Did EPA Use in the

Past?

For this delisting determination, EPA

used the information described in the

preceding paragraph to identify

plausible exposure routes (i.e.,

groundwater, surface water, air) for

hazardous constituents present in the

petitioned waste.

What is the EPACML Model and how

is it Used to Calculate Delisting Levels?

EPA used the EPA Composite Model for

Landfills (EPACML) fate and transport

model, modified for delisting, as one

approach for determining the proposed

delisting levels for BMW’s waste. See 56

FR 32993–33012, July 18, 1991, for

details on the use of the EPACML model

to determine the concentrations of

constituents in a waste that will not

result in groundwater contamination.

Delisting levels are the maximum

allowable concentrations for hazardous

constituents in the waste, so that

disposal in a landfill will not harm

human health and the environment by

contaminating groundwater, surface

water, or air. A Subtitle D landfill is a

landfill subject to RCRA Subtitle D

nonhazardous waste regulations, and to

State and local nonhazardous waste

regulations. If EPA makes a final

decision to delist BMW’s F019 waste,

BMW must meet the delisting levels and

dispose of the waste in a Subtitle D

landfill, because EPA determined the

delisting levels based on a landfill

model. However, at a future date BMW

may beneficially reuse the waste after

receiving approval by the EPA 2 that

reuse is at least as protective of human

health and the environment as disposal

in a landfill. With the EPACML

approach, EPA calculated a delisting

level for each hazardous constituent by

using the maximum estimated waste

volume to determine a Dilution

Attenuation Factor (DAF) from a table of

waste volumes and DAFs previously

calculated by the EPACML model, as

modified for delisting. See Table 2 of

section II.B. below, which is adapted

from 56 FR 32993–33012, July 18, 1991.

The maximum estimated waste volume

is the maximum number of cubic yards

of petitioned waste that BMW estimated

it would dispose of each year. The

delisting level for each constituent is

equal to the DAF multiplied by the

maximum contaminant level (MCL)

which the Safe Drinking Water Act

allows for that constituent in drinking

water. The delisting level is a

concentration in the waste leachate that

will not cause the MCL to be exceeded

in groundwater underneath a landfill

where the waste is disposed. This

method of calculating delisting levels

results in conservative levels that are

protective of groundwater, because the

model does not assume that the landfill

has the controls required of Subtitle D

landfills.

2. What Is the DRAS That Uses the New

EPACMTP Model To Calculate Not Only

Delisting Levels, But Also To Evaluate

the Effects of the Waste on Human

Health and the Environment?

The EPA is also proposing to use the

Delisting Risk Assessment Software

(DRAS),3 developed by EPA, Region 6,

to evaluate this delisting petition. The

DRAS uses a new model, called the EPA

Composite Model for Leachate

Migration with Transformation Products

(EPACMTP). The EPAMCTP improves

on the EPACML model in several ways.

EPA is proposing to use the DRAS to

calculate delisting levels and to evaluate

the impact of BMW’s petitioned waste

on human health and the environment.

Today’s proposal provides

background information on the

mechanics of the DRAS, and the use of

the DRAS in delisting decision-making.

Please see the EPA, Region 6, RCRA

Delisting Technical Support Document

(RDTSD) for a complete discussion of

the DRAS calculation methods. The

RDTSD, and Federal Registers, 65 FR

75637–75651, December 4, 2000, and 65

FR 58015–58031, September 27, 2000,

are the sources of the DRAS information

presented in today’s preamble, and are

included in the RCRA regulatory docket

for this proposed rule.

The DRAS performs a risk assessment

for petitioned wastes that are disposed

of in the two waste management units

of concern: surface impoundments for

liquid wastes and landfills for nonliquid wastes. BMW’s petitioned waste

is solid, not liquid, and will be disposed

9784 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules

4Nationwide Survey of Industrial Subtitle D

Landfills, Westat, 1987

in a landfill; therefore, only the

application of DRAS to landfills will be

discussed in this preamble.

DRAS calculates releases from solidphase wastes in a landfill, with the

following assumptions: (1) the wastes

are disposed in a Subtitle D landfill and

covered with a 2-foot-thick native soil

layer; (2) the landfill is unlined or

effectively unlined due to a liner that

will eventually completely fail. The two

parameters used to characterize landfills

are (1) area and (2) depth (the thickness

of the waste layer). Data to characterize

landfills were obtained from a

nationwide survey of industrial Subtitle

D landfills.4 Parameters and

assumptions used to estimate

infiltration of leachate from a landfill

are provided in the EPACMTP

Background Document and User’s

Guide, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA,

Washington, DC, September 1996.

DRAS uses the EPACMTP model to

simulate the fate and transport of

dissolved contaminants from a point of

release at the base of a landfill, through

the unsaturated zone and underlying

groundwater, to a receptor well at an

arbitrary downstream location in the

aquifer (the rock formation in which the

groundwater is located). DRAS

evaluates, with the EPACMTP model,

the groundwater exposure

concentrations at the receptor well that

result from the chemical release and

transport from the landfill (Application

of EPACMTP to Region 6 Delisting

Program: Development of Waste

Volume-Specific Dilution Attenuation

Factors, U.S. EPA, August 1996). For the

purpose of delisting determinations,

receptor well concentrations for both

carcinogens and non-carcinogens from

finite-source degraders and nondegraders are determined with this

model. Delisted waste is a finite source,

because in a finite period of time, the

waste’s constituents will leach and

move out of the landfill. Please see

Paragraph 8. Contaminant Release and

Transport Scenario in section I.B.3. of

this preamble.

3. Why Is the EPACMTP an

Improvement Over the EPACML?

The EPACMTP includes three major

categories of improvements over the

EPACML. The improvements include:

(1) Incorporation of additional fate

and transport processes (e.g.,

degradation of chemical constituents;

fate and transport of metals);

(2) Use of enhanced flow and

transport equations (e.g., for calculating

transport in three dimensions); and

(3) Revision of the Monte Carlo

methodology (e.g., to allow use of sitespecific, waste-specific data) (EPACMTP

Background Document and User’s

Guide, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA,

Washington, DC, September 1996).

A discussion of the key enhancements

which have been implemented in the

EPACMTP is presented here and the

details are provided in the background

documents to the proposed 1995

Hazardous Waste Identification Rule

(HWIR) (60 FR 66344, December 21,

1995). The background documents are

available through the RCRA HWIR

Federal Register proposal docket (60 FR

66344, December 21, 1995). For

explanations of mathematical and

chemical terms used in the discussion,

please contact Judy Sophianopoulos,

South Enforcement and Compliance

Section, (Mail Code 4WD–RCRA), RCRA

Enforcement and Compliance Branch,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal

Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta,

Georgia 30303, (404) 562–8604, or call,

toll free, (800) 241–1754, and leave a

message, with your name and phone

number, for Ms. Sophianopoulos to

return your call. You may also contact

her by e-mail:

sophianopoulos.judy@epa.gov.

The EPACML accounts for: onedimensional steady and uniform

advective flow; contaminant dispersion

in the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical

directions; and sorption. However,

advances in groundwater fate and

transport have been made in recent

years and EPA proposes and requests

public comment on the use of the

EPACMTP, which is a more advanced

groundwater fate and transport model,

for this RCRA delisting.

The EPACML was limited to

conditions of uniform groundwater

flow. It could not handle accurately the

conditions of significant groundwater

mounding and non-uniform

groundwater flow due to a high rate of

infiltration from the waste disposal

units. These conditions increase the

transverse horizontal, as well as the

vertical, spreading of a contaminant

plume.

The EPACMTP model overcomes the

deficiencies of the EPACML in the

following way: The subsurface as

modeled with the EPACMTP consists of

an unsaturated zone beneath a landfill

and a saturated zone, the underlying

water table aquifer. Contaminants move

vertically downward through the

unsaturated zone to the water table. The

EPACMTP simulates one-dimensional,

vertically downward flow and transport

of contaminants in the unsaturated

zone, as well as two-dimensional or

three-dimensional groundwater flow

and contaminant transport in the

underlying saturated zone. The

EPACML used a saturated zone module

that was based on a Gaussian

distribution of the concentration of a

chemical constituent in the saturated

zone. The module also used an

approximation to account for the initial

mixing of the contaminant entering at

the water table (saturated zone)

underneath the waste unit. The module

accounting for initial mixing in the

EPACML could lead to unrealistic

groundwater concentrations. The

enhanced EPACMTP model

incorporates a direct linkage between

the unsaturated zone and saturated zone

modules which overcomes these

limitations of the EPACML. The

following mechanisms affecting

contaminant migration are accounted

for in the EPACMTP model: Transport

by advection and dispersion, retardation

resulting from reversible linear or

nonlinear equilibrium sorption on the

soil and aquifer solid phase, and

biochemical degradation processes. The

EPACML did not account for

biochemical degradation, and did not

account for sorption as accurately as the

EPACMTP.

The EPACMTP consists of four major

components:

(1) A module that performs onedimensional analytical and numerical

solutions for water flow and

contaminant transport in the

unsaturated zone beneath a waste

management unit;

(2) A numerical module for steadystate groundwater flow subject to

recharge from the unsaturated zone;

(3) A module of analytical and

numerical solutions for contaminant

transport in the saturated zone; and

(4) A Monte Carlo module for

assessing the effect of the uncertainty

resulting from variations in model

parameters on predicted receptor well

concentrations.

As is true of any model, the

EPACMTP is based on a number of

simplifying assumptions that make the

model easier to use and that ensure its

computational efficiency. The major

simplifying assumptions used in the

EPACMTP are summarized below.

1. Soil and Aquifer Medium

Properties. It is assumed that the soil

and aquifer are uniform, porous media

and that flow and transport are

described by Darcy’s Law 5 and the

advection-dispersion equation 5,

respectively. The EPACMTP does not

account for the presence of preferential

pathways such as fractures and

macropores. Although the aquifer

properties are assumed to be uniform,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules 9785

5 Definitions: Darcy’s Law states that the quantity

of groundwater (Q) moving in an aquifer, expressed

as volume of water per unit of time, is equal to the

product of the aquifer’s hydraulic conductivity (K);

the cross-sectional area (A) through which the

groundwater moves and which is at a right angle

to the direction of groundwater flow; and the

hydraulic gradient (dh/dl): Q=KA(dh/dl). The

advection-dispersion equation indicates that

contaminant transport is dependent on soil

properties, such as bulk density, porosity,

volumetric water content, and fraction of organic

carbon; contaminant properties, such as solubility

in water, diffusion coefficient in air, strength of

binding to soil organic carbon, Henry’s Law

Constant, (the ratio of a contaminant’s

concentration in air to its concentration in water),

and; site properties, such as recharge rate,

contaminant concentrations in recharge, depth to

groundwater, and dimensions of modeled layer.

Anistropy is a condition where properties are not

the same in every direction.

the model does allow for anisotropy 5 in

hydraulic conductivity.

2. Flow in the Unsaturated Zone.

Flow in the unsaturated zone is

assumed to be steady-state, onedimensional, vertical flow from beneath

the source toward the water table. The

lower boundary of the unsaturated zone

is assumed to be the water table. The

flow in the unsaturated zone is assumed

to be predominantly gravity-driven, and

therefore the vertical flow component

accounts for most of the fluid flux

between the source and the water table.

The flow rate is assumed to be

determined by the long-term average

infiltration rate through the landfill.

3. Flow in the Saturated Zone. The

saturated zone module of the EPACMTP

is designed to simulate flow in an

unconfined aquifer with constant

saturated thickness. The model assumes

regional flow in a horizontal direction

with vertical disturbance resulting from

recharge and infiltration from the

overlying unsaturated zone and landfill.

The lower boundary of the aquifer is

assumed to be impermeable. Flow in the

saturated zone is assumed to be steadystate. The EPACMTP accounts for

different recharge rates beneath and

outside the source area. Groundwater

mounding beneath the source is

represented in the flow system by

increased head values at the top of the

aquifer. This approach is reasonable as

long as the height of the mound is small

relative to the thickness of the saturated

zone.

4. Transport in the Unsaturated Zone.

Contaminant transport in the

unsaturated zone is assumed to occur by

advection and dispersion. The

unsaturated zone is assumed to be

initially contaminant-free, and

contaminants are assumed to migrate

vertically downward from the disposal

facility. The EPACMTP can simulate

both steady-state and transient transport

in the unsaturated zone with singlespecies or multiple-species chain decay

reactions and with linear or nonlinear

sorption.

5. Transport in the Saturated Zone.

Contaminant transport in the saturated

zone is assumed to be a result of

advection and dispersion. The aquifer is

assumed to be initially contaminantfree, and contaminants are assumed to

enter the aquifer only from the

unsaturated zone immediately beneath

the waste disposal facility, which is

modeled as a rectangular, horizontal

plane source. The EPACMTP can

simulate both steady-state and transient

three-dimensional transport in the

aquifer. For steady-state transport, the

contaminant mass flux entering at the

water table must be constant with time;

for the transient case, the flux at the

water table may be constant or may vary

as a function of time. The EPACMTP

can simulate the transport of a single

species or multiple species, chain decay

reactions, and linear sorption.

6. Contaminant Phases. The

EPACMTP assumes that the dissolved

phase is the only mobile phase and

disregards interphase mass transfer

processes other than adsorption onto the

solid phase. The model does not

account for volatilization in the

unsaturated zone; this is a conservative

approach for volatile chemicals. The

model also does not account for the

presence of a nonaqueous-phase liquid

(such as oil) or for transport in the gas

phase. When a mobile oil phase is

present, significant contaminant

migration may occur within it, and the

EPACMTP may underestimate the

movement of hydrophobic chemicals

(chemicals that ‘‘prefer’’ not to be

dissolved in water, but to be dissolved

in oil or oil-like materials).

7. Chemical Reactions. The

EPACMTP computes chemical reactions

involving adsorption and decay

processes. The EPACMTP assumes that

sorption of organic compounds in the

subsurface is represented by linear

adsorption isotherms in both the

unsaturated and saturated zones. It is

assumed that adsorption of

contaminants onto the soil or aquifer

solid phase occurs instantaneously and

is entirely reversible. The effect of

geochemical interactions is especially

important in fate and transport analyses

of metals. For simulation of metals, the

EPACMTP uses sorption isotherms

generated by EPA’s MINTEQA2 metals

speciation model, which takes into

account the fact that many metals can

exist in more than one chemical form or

species, and that geochemical

conditions can have large effects on the

mobility of metals. The EPACML could

not account for metals speciation.

MINTEQA2 is used to generate effective

sorption isotherms for individual

metals. The sorption isotherms

correspond to a range of geochemical

conditions that cause a metal to be

present in different chemical forms or

species which sorb (or bind) to

subsurface material in different ways

with different binding strengths

(EPACMTP Metals Background

Document, Office of Solid Waste, U. S.

EPA, Washington, DC, September 1996).

The transport modules for both the

unsaturated and saturated zones in

EPACMTP have been enhanced to

incorporate the nonlinear MINTEQA2

sorption isotherms. This enhancement

provides the model with the capability

to simulate the impact of pH, leachate

organic matter, natural organic matter,

iron hydroxide and the presence of

other ions in the groundwater on the

mobility of metals in the unsaturated

and saturated zones. The EPACMTP

also accounts for chemical and

biological transformation processes. All

transformation reactions are represented

by first-order decay processes. An

overall decay rate is specified for the

model; therefore, the model cannot

explicitly consider the separate effects

of multiple degradation processes such

as oxidation, hydrolysis, and

biodegradation. The user must

determine the overall, effective decay

rate when multiple decay processes are

to be represented. To maximize its

flexibility, the EPACMTP has the

capability of determining the overall

decay rate from chemical-specific

hydrolysis constants using soil and

aquifer temperature and pH values. The

EPACMTP assumes that reaction

stoichiometry (the proportion of each

chemical taking part in a chemical

reaction) is prescribed for scenarios

involving chain decay reactions. The

speciation factors are specified as

constants by the user (see the EPACMTP

Background Document and User’s

Guide, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA,

Washington, DC, September 1996). In

reality, these coefficients may change as

functions of aquifer conditions (for

example, temperature and pH),

concentration levels of other chemical

components, or both.

8. Contaminant Release and

Transport Scenario. Two source release

scenarios are considered in the

EPACMTP: continuous (infinite) and

finite-source. Only the finite-source

scenario is considered for delisting. For

finite-source scenarios, the release of

contaminants occurs over a finite period

of time, after which the leachate

concentration becomes zero (that is, all

the contaminants in the waste disposed

9786 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules

of in the landfill have leached out). The

landfill parameters used by the

EPACMTP to calculate contaminant

release include values and/or frequency

distributions of the capacity and

dimensions of the landfill, the leachate

concentration, infiltration and recharge

rates, pulse duration, the fraction of

hazardous waste in the landfill, the

density of the waste, and the

concentration of the chemical

constituent in the hazardous waste. Data

on the areas, volumes, and locations of

landfills were obtained from the

Nationwide Survey of Industrial Subtitle

D Landfills, Westat, 1987. Derivation of

the parameters for landfills is described

in the EPACMTP Background Document

and User’s Guide, Office of Solid Waste,

U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, September

1996. For finite-source scenarios,

simulations are performed for transient

conditions, and the source is assumed to

be a pulse of finite duration. In the case

of landfills, the pulse duration is based

on the initial amount of contaminant in

the landfill, infiltration rate, landfill

dimensions, waste and leachate

concentration, and waste density. For a

finite-source scenario, the model can

calculate either the peak receptor well

concentration for non-carcinogens or an

average concentration over a specified

period for carcinogens. The finite-source

methodology in the EPACMTP is

discussed in detail in the EPACMTP

Background Document for the Finite

Source Methodology for Chemicals with

Transformation Products and

Implementation of the HWIR, Office of

Solid Waste, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC,

September 1996.

9. EPACMTP Modeling Assumptions

and Input Parameters. Specific

EPACMTP modeling assumptions (in

addition to the simplifying assumptions

discussed in the eight preceding

paragraphs) are summarized in Table

1A, below. This table also provides

information on important input

parameters as well as on their data

sources or details. Overall, EPACMTP

input parameters can be organized in

the following four groups:

1. Source-specific parameters

2. Chemical-specific parameters

3. Unsaturated zone-specific parameters

4. Saturated zone-specific parameters

For delisting, the EPACMTP is run in

Monte Carlo mode (probabilistic

calculations), and the source-,

chemical-, unsaturated zone-, and

saturated-zone specific parameters are

represented by probability distributions

reflecting variations on a national or a

regional level. Specific capabilities and

requirements associated with running

the EPACMTP in the Monte Carlo mode

are presented in Chapter 3 of EPA’s

Composite Model for Leachate

Migration with Transformation

Products, EPACMTP: User’s Guide,

Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA,

Washington, DC, 1997. The Monte Carlo

analysis determines the effect of the

possible range of the input parameter of

concern on the receptor well

concentration. Output values produced

for each iteration are sorted and ranked

from highest to lowest in order to obtain

a probabilistic distribution of receptor

well concentrations. The different

groups of input parameters are

summarized below. For chemicals that

were not modeled using the EPACMTP

fate and transport model, the most

conservative DAF was assigned (i.e.,

DAF=18f).

TABLE 1A.—EPACMTP MODELING ASSUMPTIONS AND INPUT PARAMETERS

Modeling assumptions

Modeling element Description or value

Management Scenario ........................................ Landfill.

Modeling Scenario .............................................. Finite-source Monte Carlo; depleting source for organics, constant concentration pulse source

for metals.

Exposure Evaluation ........................................... Downgradient groundwater receptor well; maximum well concentration of non-carcinogens during modeling period, maximum 30-year average well concentration of carcinogens; 10,000-

year exposure period.

Regulatory Protection ......................................... Level 90 percent.

Source-specific parameters

Parameter Description or value

Landfill Area ........................................................ Derived.

Landfill Volume ................................................... User-specified.

Infiltration Rate from Landfill ............................... Site-based, derived from water balance using HELP model.

Leaching Duration from Landfill .......................... Derived, continues until all constituents have leached out; 20 years (operational life of unit).

Chemical-specific parameters

Parameter Description and source

Decay Rate:

Organic Constituents ................................... Hydrolysis rate constants compiled by U.S. EPA ORD.

Metals .......................................................... No decay.

Sorption:

Organic Constituents ................................... Koc constants compiled by U.S. EPA ORD.

Metals .......................................................... MINTEQA2 sorption isotherm coefficients (Kd) for Pb, Hg (II), Ni, Cr (III), Ba, Cd, Ag, Zn, Cu

(II), Be]; pH- dependent isotherm coefficients for As (III), Cr (VI), Se (VI), Th.

Unsaturated zone-specific parameters

Parameter Description and source

Depth to Groundwater ........................................ Site-based, from API and USGS hydrogeologic database.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules 9787

TABLE 1A.—EPACMTP MODELING ASSUMPTIONS AND INPUT PARAMETERS—Continued

Soil Hydraulic Parameters: Fraction Organic

Carbon Bulk Density.

U.S. EPA ORD data based on national distribution of three soil types (sandy loam, silt loam,

silty clay loam).

Saturated zone-specific parameters

Parameter Description and source

Recharge Rate .................................................... Site-based, derived from regional precipitation and evaporation data and soil type.

Aquifer Thickness ............................................... Site-based, from API and USGS hydrogeologic database.

Hydraulic Conductivity ........................................ Site-based, from API and USGS hydrogeologic database.

Hydraulic Gradient .............................................. Site-based, from API and USGS hydrogeologic database.

Porosity ............................................................... Effective porosity derived from national distribution of aquifer particle diameter.

Bulk Density ........................................................ Derived from porosity.

Dispersivity .......................................................... Derived from distance to receptor well.

Groundwater Temperature ................................. Site-based, from USGS regional temperature map.

Fraction Organic Carbon .................................... National distribution, from U.S. EPA STORET database.

pH ....................................................................... National distribution, from U.S. EPA STORET database.

Receptor well parameters

Well element Description and source

Radial Distance from Landfill .............................. Nationwide distribution, from U.S. EPA OSW database.

Angle Off-Center ................................................. Unifrom within ± 90° from plume center line (no restriction within plume).

Depth of Intake Point .......................................... Uniform throughout saturated thickness of aquifer.

Notes:

Table is adapted from Tables 2-1, Chapter 2 of Region 6’s RCRA Delisting Technical Support Document, EPA906–D–98–001, Interim Final,

August 1, 2000.

API = American Petroleum Institute.

HELP = Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance; The HELP model was used to calculate landfill infiltration rates for a representative

subtitle D landfill with 2-foot earthen cover, and no liner or leachate collection system, using climatic data from 97 climatic stations located

throughout the United States. These correspond to the reasonable worst case assumptions as explained in the HWIR Risk Assessment Background Document for the HWIR proposed notice 60 FR 66344 (December 21, 1995). Additional details on the methodologies used by the

EPACMTP to derive DAFs for waste constituents modeled for the landfill scenario are presented in the Background Documents for the proposed

HWIR rule. See 60 FR 66344 (December 21, 1995). The fraction of waste in the landfill is assigned a uniform distribution with lower and upper

limits of 0.036 and 1.0, respectively, based on analysis of waste composition in Subtitle D landfills. The lower bound assures that the landfill will

always contain a minimum amount of the waste of concern. The waste density is assigned a value based on reported densities of hazardous

waste, and varies between 0.7 and 2.1 g/cm.3

ORD = U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development.

STORET = Database Utility for STORage and RETrieval of Chemical, Physical, and Biological Data for Water Quality.

USGS = U.S. Geological Survey.

4. Has the EPACMTP Methodology Been

Formally Reviewed?

The Science Advisory Board (SAB), a

public advisory group that provides

information and advice to the EPA,

reviewed the EPACMTP model as part

of a continuing effort to provide

improvements in the development and

external peer review of environmental

regulatory models. Overall, the SAB

commended EPA for making significant

enhancements to the EPACMTP’s

predecessor, the EPACML and for

responding to previous SAB

suggestions. The SAB also concluded

that the mathematical formulation

incorporating daughter products into

the model appeared to be correct and

that the site-based approach using

hydrogeologic regions is superior to the

previous approach used in EPACML.

The model underwent public comment

during the 1995 proposed HWIR. See 60

FR 66344 (December 21, 1995).

5. Has EPA Modified the EPACMTP as

Used in the Proposed Hazardous Waste

Identification Rule (HWIR)?

The EPACMTP, as developed for

HWIR, determined the DAF using a

Monte Carlo approach that selected, at

random, a waste volume from a range of

waste volumes identified in EPA’s 1987

Subtitle D landfill survey. In delisting

determinations, the waste volume of the

petitioner is known. Therefore,

application of EPACMTP to the

delisting program has been modified to

evaluate the specific waste volume, just

as the original EPACML model was

modified for delisting to derive DAFs

related to waste volume from DAFs

related to landfill area. EPA modified

the DAFs determined under the HWIR

proposal to account for a known waste

volume. To generate waste volumespecific DAFs, EPA developed ‘‘scaling

factors’’ to modify DAFs developed for

HWIR (based on the entire range of

waste disposal units) to DAFs for

delisting waste volumes. This was

accomplished by computing a 90th

percentile DAF for a conservative

chemical (a chemical that persists in the

environment) for 10 specific waste

volumes (ranging from 1,000 cubic

yards to 300,000 cubic yards) for each

waste management scenario (landfill

and surface impoundment). EPA

assumed that DAFs for a specific waste

volume are linearly related to DAFs

developed by EPACMTP for the HWIR.

DAF scaling factors were computed for

the ten increment waste volumes. Using

these ten scaling factor DAFs, regression

equations were developed for each

waste management scenario to provide

a continuum of DAF scaling factors as

a function of waste volume.

The regression equations are coded

into the DRAS program which then

automatically adjusts the DAF for the

waste volume of the petitioner.

The method used to verify the scaling

factor approach is presented in the

document, Application of EPACMTP to

Region 6 Delisting Program:

Development of Waste Volume-Specific

Dilution Attenuation Factors, U.S. EPA,

August 1996. For the landfill waste

management scenario, the DAF scaling

factors ranged from 9.5 for 10,000 cu.

9788 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules

6McKone, T.E., and K.T. Bogen, 1992,

‘‘Uncertainties in Health-Risk Assessment: An

Integrated Case Study Based on Tetrachloroethylene

in California Groundwater.’’ Regulatory Toxicology

and Parmacology, 15:86–103. 7McKone, T.E. 1987, ‘‘Human Exposure to

Volatile Organic Compounds in Household Tap

Water. The Indoor Inhalation Pathway.’’

Environmental Science and Technology, 21(12):

1194–1201.

8Farmer, W.J., MS. Yange and J. Letey. ‘‘Land

Disposal of Hexachlorobenzene Wastes Controlling

Vapor Movement in Soils.’’ In: Land Disposal of

Hazardous Wastes, Proceedings of the Fourth

Annual Research Symposium. Held at San Antonio,

TX on March 6, 7 and 8. EPA–600/9–78–016. U.S.

EPA Office of Research and Development,

Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,

Cincinnati OH. August.

yard to approximately 1.0 for waste

volumes greater than 200,000 cu. yards.

Therefore, for petitioned waste volumes

greater than 200,000 cu. yards, the waste

volume-specific DAF is the same as the

DAF computed for the proposed HWIR.

The regression equation that can be

used to determine the DAF scaling

factor (DSF) as a function of waste

volume (in cubic yards) for the landfill

waste management unit is: DSF =

6152.7* (waste volume) ¥0.7135. The

correlation coefficient of this regression

equation is 0.99, indicating a good fit of

this line to the data points.

6. What Modifications to the DRAS

Have Been Made Since the Proposal in

65 FR 58015–58031, September 27,

2000?

Several revisions have been made to

the DRAS program in order to improve

the modeling. Specifically, the

groundwater inhalation pathway was

revised to reflect recent advances in

modeling household inhalation from

home water use (e.g., showering). The

basis for estimating the concentration of

constituents in the indoor air is based

on the mass transfer of constituent from

water to shower air. The initial version

of DRAS used a fate and transport

model described by McKone and Bogen

(1992) 6 which predicted the highest

waste concentration emitted from the

water into the air during a given water

use period (e.g., 10-minute shower).

This method was revised to more

accurately predict the average

concentration occurring during the

exposure event.

The revised model used in this

analysis is based on the equations

presented in McKone (1987) 7. The

shower model estimates the change in

the shower (or bathroom or household)

air concentration based on the mass of

constituent lost by the water (fraction

emitted or emission rate) and the air

exchange rate between the various

model compartments (shower, the rest

of the bathroom, and the rest of the

house). The resulting differential

equations were solved using finite

difference numerical integration. The

average air concentration in the shower

and bathroom are obtained by averaging

the concentrations obtained for each

time step over the duration of the

exposure event (shower and bathroom

use). These concentrations and the

durations of daily exposure are used to

estimate risk from inhalation exposures

to residential use of groundwater.

Further, improvements were made to

more accurately reflect the transfer

efficiency of the waste constituent from

the groundwater to the air compartment.

The fraction emitted from the bathroom

or household water use is a function of

the input transfer efficiency (or

maximum fraction emitted) and the

driving force for mass transfer (the

differential between air saturation

concentration at air/water interface and

bulk air concentration). For example, in

the shower compartment, the

constituent emission rate is estimated

from the change in the shower water

concentration as the water falls through

the air.

The shower emissions can be

modeled based on falling droplets as a

means of estimating the surface-area-tovolume ratio for mass transfer and the

residence time of the water in the

shower compartment, assuming the

constituent concentration in the gas

phase is constant over the time frame of

the droplet fall. By assuming the drops

fall at terminal velocity, the surfacearea-to-volume ratio and the residence

time can be determined based solely on

droplet size. A droplet size of

approximately 1 mm (0.1 cm) was

selected. The terminal velocity for the

selected droplet size is approximately

400 cm/s. The fraction of constituent

emitted from a water droplet at any

given time can then be calculated.

The equations used to predict surface

volatilization from a landfill have been

modified to more accurately reflect true

waste concentration releases. The

previous version of DRAS used Farmer’s

equation 8 to estimate the emission rate

of volatiles from the surface of the

landfill. Farmer’s equation assumes that

the emission originates as volatiles in

liquids trapped in the pore spaces

between solid particles of waste. The

volatiles evaporate from the liquid and

are emitted from the landfill following

gaseous diffusion through the solid

waste particles and soil cover to the

surface of the landfill. Farmer’s equation

requires the mole fraction of a given

volatile constituent in the liquid in

order to calculate the emission. The

previous version of DRAS used the

TCLP value of a volatile constituent in

the waste to approximate the mole

fraction of a given constituent in the

pore liquid. Since the TCLP test

includes a 20-fold dilution, the

calculation might underestimate the

available concentration of volatiles in

freshly deposited waste. The DRAS has

been revised to use Shen’s modification

of Farmer’s equation, described in U.S.

EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards’ 1984 Evaluation and

Selection of Models for Estimating Air

Emissions from Hazardous Waste

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal

Facilities, EPA–450/3–84–020. Shen

took the simplified version of Farmer’s

equation for vapor flux from a soil

surface and converted it to an emission

rate by multiplying it by the exposed

landfill area. Shen’s modification uses

the total waste constituent

concentration (weight fraction in the

bulk waste) to approximate the mole

fraction of that constituent in the liquid

phase.

In estimating the amount of a given

waste constituent that is released to

surface water and eventually becomes

freely dissolved in the water column,

previous delisting petitions and the

earlier version of the DRAS used the

maximum observed TCLP concentration

in waste as the total amount of the waste

constituent available for erosion.

Further, the former method assumed

that all of the constituent mass that

reached the stream, based on TCLP,

became dissolved in the aqueous phase.

Assuming complete conversion to a

dissolved state is overly conservative

and not in agreement with recent EPA

methodology. In the revised DRAS, the

total waste constituent concentration is

used to estimate the constituent mass

that reaches the stream. The portion of

the waste constituent that becomes

freely dissolved is determined by an

estimate of partitioning between

suspended solids and the aqueous

phase. This methodology is described in

U.S. EPA’s 1998 Human Health Risk

Assessment Protocol for Hazardous

Waste Combustion Facilities, Volume

One, Peer Review Draft, EPA530–D–98–

001A (HHRAP).

Recent developments in mercury

partitioning described in the Mercury

Report to Congress led to another

revision to the surface water pathway.

The DRAS was modified to account for

bioaccumulation of methyl mercury as a

result of the release of mercury into the

surface water column. The primary

human health hazard posed by the

release of mercury into surface water is

through bioaccumulation of methyl

mercury in fish followed by human

consumption of the contaminated fish.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules 9789

9 ‘‘SW–846’’ means EPA Publication SW–846,

‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,

Physical/Chemical Methods.’’ Methods in this

publication are referred to in today’s proposed rule

as ‘‘SW–846,’’ followed by the appropriate method

number.

10 ‘‘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.’’

Biological processes in surface water

cause the conversion, or methylation, of

elemental mercury to methyl mercury.

In accordance with the HHRAP, 15% of

mercury in the water column is

assumed to be converted to methyl

mercury. This fraction is then used,

along with the current bioaccumulation

factor, to determine the predicted

concentration of methyl mercury in fish

tissue.

7. What Methods Is EPA Proposing To

Use To Determine Delisting Levels for

This Petitioned Waste?

BMW submitted to the EPA analytical

data from its Greer, South Carolina plant

and from the BMW plant in Dingolfing,

Germany. Four composite samples of

wastewater treatment sludge, from

approximately 60 batches of wastewater,

were collected from each plant, over a

three-week period. A summary of

analytical data is presented in Table 1B

of section II below, with analytical

details in the Table footnotes.

After reviewing the analytical data

and information on processes and raw

materials that BMW submitted in the

delisting petition, EPA developed a list

of constituents of concern and

calculated delisting levels for them

using MCLs and EPACML DAFs and

calculated delisting levels and risks

using DRAS and EPACMTP DAFs as

described above. EPA requests public

comment on these proposed methods of

calculating delisting levels and risks for

BMW’s petitioned waste.

EPA also requests comment on three

additional methods of evaluating

BMW’s delisting petition and

determining delisting levels: (1) Use of

the Multiple Extraction Procedure

(MEP), SW–846 Method 1320,9 to

evaluate the long-term resistance of the

waste to leaching in a landfill; (2)

setting limits on total concentrations of

constituents in the waste that are more

conservative than results of calculations

of constituent release from waste in a

landfill to surface water and air, and

release during waste transport; and (3)

setting delisting levels at the Land

Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Universal

Treatment Standards (UTS) levels in 40

CFR 268.48. The UTS levels for BMW’s

constituents of concern are the

following:

Barium: 21 mg/l TCLP; Cadmium:

0.11 mg/l TCLP; Chromium: 0.60 mg/l

TCLP; Cyanide Total: 590 mg/kg;

Cyanide Amenable 30 mg/kg; Lead: 0.75

mg/l TCLP; Nickel: 11 mg/l TCLP.

The EPA provides 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

A. Summary of Delisting Petition

Submitted by BMW Manufacturing

Corporation, Greer, South Carolina

(BMW)

BMW manufactures BMW

automobiles, and is seeking a delisting

for the sludge that will be generated by

treating wastewater from its

manufacturing operations, when

aluminum will be used to replace some

of the steel in the automobile bodies.

Wastewater treatment sludge does not

meet a hazardous waste listing

definition when steel-only automobile

bodies are manufactured. However, the

wastewater treatment sludge generated

at automobile manufacturing plants

where aluminum is used as a

component of automobile bodies, meets

the listing definition of F019 in

§ 261.31.10

BMW petitioned EPA, Region 4, on

June 2, 2000, to exclude this F019

waste, on a generator-specific basis,

from the lists of hazardous wastes in 40

CFR part 261, subpart D.

The hazardous constituents of

concern for which F019 was listed are

hexavalent chromium and cyanide

(complexed). BMW petitioned the EPA

to exclude its F019 waste because BMW

does not use either of these constituents

in the manufacturing process. Therefore,

BMW does not believe that the waste

meets the criteria of the listing.

BMW claims that its F019 waste will

not be hazardous because the

constituents of concern for which F019

is listed will be present only at low

concentrations and will not leach out of

the waste at significant concentrations.

BMW also believes that this waste will

not be hazardous for any other reason

(i.e., there will be 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 U.S.C. 6921(f),

and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)–(4). Today’s

proposal to grant this petition for

delisting is the result of the EPA’s

evaluation of BMW’s petition.

In support of its petition, BMW

submitted: (1) Descriptions of its

manufacturing and wastewater

treatment processes, the generation

point of the petitioned waste, and the

manufacturing steps that will contribute

to its generation; (2) Material Safety

Data Sheets (MSDSs) for materials used

to manufacture automobiles and to treat

wastewater; (3) the minimum and

maximum annual amounts of

wastewater treatment sludge generated

from 1996 through 1999, and an

estimate of the maximum annual

amount expected to be generated in the

future; (4) results of analysis for metals,

cyanide, sulfide, fluoride, and volatile

organic compounds in the currently

generated waste at the BMW plants in

Greer, South Carolina, and Dingolfing,

Germany; (5) results of the analysis of

leachate obtained by means of the

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching

Procedure ((TCLP), SW–846 Method

1311), from these wastes; (6) results of

the determinations for the hazardous

characteristics of ignitability,

corrosivity, and reactivity, in these

wastes; (7) results of determinations of

dry weight percent, bulk density, and

free liquids in these wastes; and (8)

results of the MEP analysis of the

currently generated waste at the plant in

Greer, South Carolina.

The BMW automobile assembly plant

in Greer, South Carolina, manufactures

automobiles for domestic consumption

and for shipment to foreign markets.

BMW’s Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) code is 3711. The

assembly plant operations include body

welding, conversion coating, painting,

final assembly, and shipment. The

manufacturing process that will cause

F019 to be generated is conversion

coating, when applied to automobile

bodies that contain aluminum.

Conversion coating takes place in the

plant’s paint shop and treats the metal

surface of each automobile body before

painting to provide resistance to

corrosion and to prepare the metal

surface for optimum paint adhesion.

Wastewater from all plant operations is

treated at BMW’s wastewater

pretreatment plant which is located in

an area of the paint shop. The

wastewater is treated to meet the

requirements of BMW’s wastewater

pretreatment permit before discharging

the water to the publicly owned

treatment works (POTW). Treatment

results in the formation of insoluble

9790 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules

metal hydroxides and phosphates.

Wastewater treatment sludge is

generated when these metal hydroxides

and phosphates are dewatered in a filter

press. The sludge that exits from the

filter press will be classified as F019

when the automobile bodies contain

aluminum, and the exit from the filter

press will be the point of generation of

F019.

BMW began generating wastewater

treatment sludge from its Greer, South

Carolina, assembly plant in 1994. From

1996 through 1999, BMW generated

from 264 tons to 386 tons of wastewater

treatment sludge per year. BMW

estimated that production could

increase to 1,600 vehicles per day in the

next decade, and the generation rate of

wastewater treatment sludge could

reach 2,400 tons per year. BMW

produces relatively large quantities of

sludge because the company voluntarily

removes phosphate from its wastewater

in order to protect water quality in a

recreational lake located downstream of

the POTW discharge.

Table 1B below summarizes the

hazardous constituents and their

concentrations in BMW’s wastewater

treatment sludge generated from the

manufacture of steel-only automobile

bodies at the Greer, South Carolina,

plant, and in the wastewater treatment

sludge generated from the manufacture

of automobile bodies containing steel

and aluminum, at the BMW plant in

Dingolfing, Germany.

TABLE 1B.—BMW MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, GREER, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND DINGOLFING, GERMANY:

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE PROFILE

Parameters 1 1 2 34 2 Max. Mean S.D. C.V.3

(percent)

Metals

Barium:

SC Plant ............ 402 387 (383) 377 368 402 383.4 12.6 3.3

German Plant .... 144 (106) 116 120 121 144 121.4 14.0 11.5

Barium—TCLP:

SC Plant ............ ND ND (ND) ND ND NA NA NA NA

German Plant .... ND (ND) ND ND ND NA NA NA NA

Cadmium:

SC Plant ............ 21.3 21.5 (21.1) 20.6 19.9 21.5 20.88 0.642 3.1

German Plant .... 3.77 (3.48) 3.26 ND ND 3.77 3.42 0.22 6.5

Cadmium—TCLP:

SC Plant ............ ND ND (ND) ND ND NA NA NA NA

German Plant .... ND (ND) ND ND ND NA NA NA NA

Chromium:

SC Plant ............ 202 222 (207) 213 201 222 209 8.69 4.2

German Plant .... 94.3 (84.2) 90.5 94.6 100 100 92.72 5.84 6.3

Chromium—TCLP:

SC Plant ............ ND ND (ND) ND ND NA NA NA NA

German Plant .... ND (ND) ND ND ND NA NA NA NA

Lead:

SC Plant ............ 337 356 (348) 356 340 356 347 8.82 2.5

German Plant .... 1,920 (1,430) 1,540 1,490 1,240 1,920 1,524 248.9 16.3

Lead—TCLP:

SC Plant ............ ND ND (ND) ND ND NA NA NA NA

German Plant .... ND (ND) ND ND ND NA NA NA NA

Nickel:

SC Plant ............ 1,400 1,660 (1,560) 1,710 1,500 1,710 1,566 124.0 7.9

German Plant .... 5,680 (5,350) 5,620 5,860 6,450 6,450 5,792 410.8 7.1

Nickel—TCLP:

SC Plant ............ 6.00 5.69 (5.80) 6.25 6.09 6.25 5.966 0.224 3.8

German Plant .... 0.73 (ND) 0.62 ND ND 0.73 0.57 0.10 18.1

Zinc:

SC Plant ............ 15,000 15,100 (14,300) 14,000 13,300 15,100 14,300 743.6 5.2

German Plant .... 14,600 (12,500) 13,800 13,800 13,900 14,600 13,720 759.6 5.5

Zinc—TCLP:

SC Plant ............ 6.08 6.21 (6.07) 5.42 5.87 6.21 5.93 0.310 5.2

German Plant .... ND (ND) ND ND ND NA NA NA NA

Volatile Organic

Compounds

Acetone:

SC Plant ............ 5.950j 3.263j (1.432j) 3.372j 1.793j 5.950j 3.162 1.781 56.3

German Plant .... ND (ND) ND ND ND ND NA NA NA

Acetone—TCLP:

SC Plant ............ 8.28j 5.13j (0.0507j) 2.68j 1.34j 8.28j 3.50 3.27 93.4

German Plant .... 0.6067j (0.3581j) 1.563j 0.3090j 1.490j 1.563j 0.8654 0.6145 71.0

2-Butanone:

SC Plant ............ 1.055 1.122 (ND) 0.6889 0.2672 1.122 0.6623 0.4348 65.7

German Plant .... ND (ND) ND ND ND ND NA NA NA

2-Butanone—TCLP:

SC Plant ............ ND ND (ND) ND ND ND NA NA NA

German Plant .... ND (ND) ND ND ND ND NA NA NA

Ethylbenzene:

SC Plant ............ 0.6917j 0.5789j 0.2875j 0.1960j 0.7879j 0.7879j 0.5084 0.2564 50.4

German Plant .... ND (ND) ND ND ND ND NA NA NA

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules 9791

TABLE 1B.—BMW MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, GREER, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND DINGOLFING, GERMANY:

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE PROFILE—Continued

Parameters 1 1 2 34 2 Max. Mean S.D. C.V.3

(percent)

Ethylbenzene—

TCLP:

SC Plant ............ ND ND (ND) ND ND ND NA NA NA

German Plant .... ND (ND) ND ND ND ND NA NA NA

4-Methyl-2-

pentanone:

SC Plant ............ 0.4100 0.3089 (ND) 0.2843 0.1948 0.410 0.2753 0.0938 34.1

German Plant .... ND (ND) ND ND ND ND NA NA NA

4-methyl-2-

pentanone—TCLP:

SC Plant ............ ND ND (ND) ND ND ND NA NA NA

German Plant .... ND (ND) 0.0733 ND ND 0.0733 NA NA NA

Toluene:

SC Plant ............ ND 0.0211 (ND) ND ND 0.0211 NA NA NA

German Plant .... ND (ND) ND ND ND ND NA NA NA

Toluene—TCLP:

SC Plant ............ ND ND (ND) ND ND ND NA NA NA

German Plant .... ND (ND) ND ND ND ND NA NA NA

Xylenes, total:

SC Plant ............ 2.4828j 2.144j (1.089j) 0.6871j 2.445j 2.4828j 1.7696 0.8276 46.8

German Plant .... 1.133 (1.000) 0.5667 1.233 1.050 1.233 0.997 0.256 25.7

Xylenes, total—

TCLP:

SC Plant ............ ND ND (0.0038) ND ND 0.0038 NA NA NA

German Plant .... 0.0273 (0.0255) 0.0343 0.0297 0.0407 0.0407 0.0315 0.0061 19.4

Hazardous Waste

Characteristics

Corrosivity:

SC Plant ............ No No (No) No No NA NA NA NA

German Plant .... No (No) No No No NA NA NA NA

Ignitability:

SC Plant ............ No No (No) No No NA NA NA NA

German Plant .... No (No) No No No NA NA NA NA

Reactive Sulfide:

SC Plant ............ 153j 194j (32j) 52j 78j 194j 101.8 69.0 67.8

German Plant .... ND (ND) ND ND ND ND NA NA NA

Reactive Cyanide:

SC Plant ............ ND ND (ND) ND ND ND NA NA NA

German Plant .... ND (ND) ND ND ND ND NA NA NA

Inorganic Nonmetals

Total Cyanide:

SC Plant ............ ND 2.05j (3.35j) ND ND (3.35j) 2.28 0.599 26.3

German Plant .... ND (ND) ND ND ND ND NA NA NA

Amenable Cyanide:

SC Plant ............ ND ND (ND) ND ND ND NA NA NA

German Plant .... ND (ND) ND ND ND ND NA NA NA

Fluoride:

SC Plant ............ 8.6 9.7 (9.4) 11.7 13.7 13.7 10.62 2.07 19.5

German Plant .... 8.0j (9.2j) 8.4j 15.6j 15.5j 15.6j 11.3 3.87 34.2

Properties

Dry Weight Percent:

SC Plant ............ 30 28 (28) 28 29 30 28.6 0.894 3.1

German Plant .... 30 (31) 30 30 30 31 30.2 0.447 1.5

Paint Filter Test 4:

SC Plant ............ Pass Pass (Pass) Pass Pass NA NA NA NA

German Plant .... Pass (Pass) Pass Pass Pass NA NA NA NA

1Parameters are the chemicals or properties analyzed. Results for the two plants are in separate rows below the name of the chemical or

property. 2The first set of results for each chemical shows the concentrations determined by total analysis of the samples in milligrams of chemical per

kilogram of waste (mg/kg). The second set of results for each chemical shows the concentrations determined by analysis of the TCLP extracts of

the samples in milligrams of chemical per liter of TCLP extract of the waste (mg/L). The TCLP results are just below the row where the name of

the chemical is followed by ‘‘—TCLP.’’ ND = Not detected. NA = Not applicable. j = Parameter concentration estimated based on validation criteria. The metals, antimony, hexavalent chromium, silver, and vanadium, and the volatile organic compounds ethyl acetate, isobutanol, -butanol,

and methanol were not detected by total analysis of samples from both plants and are not included in the table in order to save space. Numbers

1 through 4 in the table heading identify composite samples. Results in parentheses are for duplicate samples. As described in the petition, each

composite sample is a mixture of six grab samples. Grab samples were used for total analysis of volatile organic chemicals.

9792 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules

3The last four columns contain a statistical analysis of the analytical results. Max. = maximum concentration found; Mean. = mean or average

concentration found = sum of concentrations divided by the number of samples; S.D.= standard deviation = the square root of [(sum of squares

of the differences between each measured concentration and the mean) divided by (the number of samples minus 1)]; C.V. = coefficient of variation, expressed as a percent = 100 times the standard deviation divided by the mean concentration. Statistical analyses were performed only if

the parameter was detected in more han one sample. Detection limits reported by the laboratory were used in the statistical calculations when

chemicals were not detected (ND). This is a conservative assumption, which is likely to result in overestimation of the mean concentration. 4 ‘‘Pass’’ for the Paint Filter Test means that the sludge samples contained no free liquids.

EPA concluded after reviewing

BMW’s waste management and waste

history information that no other

hazardous constituents, other than those

tested for, are likely to be present in

BMW’s petitioned waste. In addition, on

the basis of test results and other

information provided by BMW,

pursuant to section 260.22, EPA

concluded that the petitioned waste will

not exhibit any of the characteristics of

ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity.

See §§ 261.21, 261.22, and 261.23,

respectively.

During its evaluation of BMW’s

petition, EPA also considered the

potential impact of the petitioned waste

on media other than groundwater. With

regard to airborne dispersal of waste,

EPA evaluated the potential hazards

resulting from airborne exposure to

waste contaminants from the petitioned

waste using an air dispersion model for

releases from a landfill. The results of

this evaluation indicated that there is no

substantial present or potential hazard

to human health from airborne exposure

to constituents from BMW’s petitioned

waste. (A description of EPA’s

assessment of the potential impact of

airborne dispersal of BMW’s petitioned

waste is presented in the RCRA public

docket for today’s proposed rule.)

EPA evaluated the potential impact of

the petitioned waste on surface water

resulting from storm water runoff from

a landfill containing the petitioned

waste, and found that the waste would

not present a threat to human health or

the environment. (See the docket for

today’s proposed rule for a description

of this analysis). In addition, EPA

believes that containment structures at

municipal solid waste landfills can

effectively control runoff, as Subtitle D

regulations (see 56 FR 50978, October 9,

1991) prohibit pollutant discharges into

surface waters. While some

contamination of surface water is

possible through runoff from a waste

disposal area, EPA believes that the

dissolved concentrations of hazardous

constituents in the runoff are likely to

be lower than the extraction procedure

test results reported in today’s proposed

rule, because of the aggressive acidic

medium used for extraction in the

TCLP. EPA also believes that, in general,

leachate derived from the waste will not

directly enter a surface water body

without first traveling through the

saturated subsurface where dilution of

hazardous constituents may occur.

Transported contaminants would be

further diluted in the receiving water

body. Subtitle D controls would

minimize significant releases to surface

water from erosion of undissolved

particulates in runoff.

B. What Delisting Levels Did EPA

Obtain With the EPACML Model and

with DRAS?

In order to account for possible

variability in the generation rate, EPA

calculated delisting levels using a

maximum generation rate of 2,400 tons

per year. EPA converted the 2,400 tons

to a waste volume of 2,850 cubic yards,

by using BMW’s conservative estimate

that the density of the sludge is

approximately equal to the density of

water. While the sludge is certainly

more dense than water, using the lower

density results in a higher value for the

waste volume, and a lower, more

conservative, Dilution Attenuation

Factor (DAF). Table 2 below is a table

of waste volumes in cubic yards and the

corresponding DAFs from the EPACML

model. EPA obtained a DAF of 70 from

Table 2, for BMW’s petitioned waste.

TABLE 2.—DILUTION/ATTENUATION

FACTORS (DAFS) FOR LANDFILLS

CALCULATED BY THE EPACML

MODEL, MODIFIED FOR DELISTING

Waste volume in cubic yards

per year 1

DAF (95th

percentile) 2

1,000 ..................................... 3 100

1,250 ..................................... 96

1,500 ..................................... 90

1,750 ..................................... 84

2,000 ..................................... 79

2,500 ..................................... 74

3,000 ..................................... 68

4,000 ..................................... 57

5,000 ..................................... 54

6,000 ..................................... 48

7,000 ..................................... 45

8,000 ..................................... 43

9,000 ..................................... 40

10,000 ................................... 36

12,500 ................................... 33

15,000 ................................... 29

20,000 ................................... 27

25,000 ................................... 24

30,000 ................................... 23

40,000 ................................... 20

50,000 ................................... 19

60,000 ................................... 17

80,000 ................................... 17

90,000 ................................... 16

TABLE 2.—DILUTION/ATTENUATION

FACTORS (DAFS) FOR LANDFILLS

CALCULATED BY THE EPACML

MODEL, MODIFIED FOR DELISTING—

Continued

Waste volume in cubic yards

per year 1

DAF (95th

percentile) 2

100,000 ................................. 15

150,000 ................................. 14

200,000 ................................. 13

250,000 ................................. 12

300,000 ................................. 12

1The waste volume includes a scaling factor

of 20 (56 FR 32993, July 18, 1991; and 56 FR

67197, Dec. 30, 1991), where the annual volume of waste in the table is assumed to be

sent to a landfill every year for 20 years. 2The DAFs calculated by the EPACML are

a probability distribution based on a range of

values for each model input parameter; the

input parameters include such variables as

landfill size, climatic data, and hydrogeologic

data. The 95th percentile DAF represents a

value in which one can have 95% confidence

that a contaminant’s concentration will be reduced by a factor equal to the DAF, as the

contaminant moves from the bottom of the

landfill through the subsurface environment to

a receptor well. For example, if the 95th percentile DAF is 10, and the leachate concentration of cadmium at the bottom of the landfill is

0.05 mg/l, one can be 95% confident that the

receptor well concentration of cadmium will

not exceed 0.005 mg/l. See 55 FR 11826,

March 29, 1990; 56 FR 32993, July 18, 1991;

and 56 FR 67197, December 30, 1991. 3 DAF cutoff is 100, corresponding to the

Toxicity Characteristic Rule (55 FR 11826,

March 29, 1990).

Table 3A below is a table of EPACML

delisting levels for each constituent of

concern in BMW’s petitioned waste.

The constituents of concern are barium,

cadmium, chromium, cyanide, lead, and

nickel, and the EPACML DAF is 70 for

the maximum estimated volume.

TABLE 3A.—DELISTING LEVELS CALCULATED FROM EPACML MODEL

FOR BMW PETITIONED WASTE

Constituent MCL 1(mg/

l)

Delisting

level (mg/l

TCLP)

Barium .................. 2 2 100

Cadmium .............. 0.005 0.35

Chromium ............. 0.10 2 5

Cyanide ................. 0.20 3 14

Lead ...................... 4 0.015 1.05

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules 9793

TABLE 3A.—DELISTING LEVELS CALCULATED FROM EPACML MODEL

FOR BMW PETITIONED WASTE—

Continued

Constituent MCL 1(mg/

l)

Delisting

level (mg/l

TCLP)

Nickel .................... 5 0.73 51

1See the ‘‘Docket Report on Health-based

Levels and Solubilities Used in the Evaluation

of Delisting Petitions, Submitted Under 40

CFR 260.20 and 260.22,’’ December 1994, located in the RCRA public docket, for the

Agency’s methods of calculating health-based

levels for evaluating delisting petitions from

MCLs, and when MCLs are not available. 2The Toxicity Characteristic (TC) regulatory

level in 40 CFR 261.24 for chromium is 5 mg/l

and for barium is 100 mg/l. Therefore, for

chromium, although a DAF of 70 times 0.10

equals 7, the delisting level cannot be greater

than 5 mg/l because a delisted waste must not

exhibit a hazardous characteristic. For the

same reason, the delisting level for barium

cannot be 70 times 2, equal to 140, but must

not be greater than 100, the TC regulatory

level for barium. 3The TCLP is to be followed for cyanide,

except that deionized water must be used as

the leaching medium, instead of the acetic

acid or acetate buffer specified in the TCLP.

SW–846 Method 9010 or 9012 must be used

to measure cyanide concentration in the deionized water leachate.

4This value is an action level for a Publicly

Owned Treatment Works, rather than a MCL. 5This value is a value that is protective of

tap water, obtained from EPA Region 9’s Preliminary Remediation Goals Tables. Internet

address is: http://www.epa.gov/region09/

waste/sfund/prg/s1_05.htm

Delisting levels and risk levels

calculated by DRAS, using the

EPACMTP model, are presented in

Table 3B below. DRAS found that the

major pathway for human exposure to

this waste is groundwater ingestion, and

calculated delisting and risk levels

based on that pathway. The input values

required by DRAS were the chemical

constituents in BMW’s petitioned waste;

their maximum reported concentrations

in the TCLP extract of the waste and in

the unextracted waste (Values for the

South Carolina plant in Table 1B,

Preamble Section II.A.); the maximum

annual volume to be disposed (2,850

cubic yards) in a landfill; the desired

risk level, which was chosen to be no

worse than 10–6 for carcinogens; and a

hazard quotient of no greater than 1 for

non-carcinogens. The only carcinogenic

constituent in the waste is cadmium,

and cadmium also has non-carcinogenic

toxic effects. Allowable total

concentrations in the waste, as

calculated by DRAS for the waste, itself,

not the TCLP leachate, were all at least

1,000 times greater than the actual

maximum total concentrations found in

the waste, and are not included in Table

3B, since many amount to metal or

cyanide concentrations of several per

cent. However, in addition to limits on

the concentrations of constituents in the

TCLP leachate of the petitioned waste,

EPA does propose to set the following

limits on total concentrations, in units

of milligrams of constituent per

kilogram of unextracted waste (mg/kg):

Barium: 2,000; Cadmium: 500;

Chromium: 1,000; Cyanide (Total, not

Amenable): 200; Lead: 2,000; and

Nickel: 20,000. EPA asks for public

comment on these limits which were

chosen to be both protective of human

health and the environment and to be

realistic, attainable values for

wastewater treatment sludges that

contain metals and cyanide. The

maximum reported total concentrations

for BMW’s petitioned waste were all

below these limits. The limit for cyanide

was chosen so that the waste could not

exhibit the reactivity characteristic for

cyanide by exceeding the interim

guidance for reactive cyanide of 250 mg/

kg of releasable hydrogen cyanide (SW–

846, Chapter Seven, Section 7.3.3.)

TABLE 3B.—DELISTING AND RISK LEVELS CALCULATED BY DRAS WITH EPACMTP MODEL FOR BMW PETITIONED

WASTE

Constituent Delisting level (mg/l of

TCLP) DAF

DRAS-calculated risk

for maximum concentration carcinogen

in waste

DRAS-calculated hazard quotient for maximum concentration of

non-carcinogen in

waste

Barium ............................................................ 1 182 69.2 4.87 × 10–2

Cadmium ........................................................ 1 1.4 74.6 1.62 × 10–13 3.57 × 10–2

Chromium ....................................................... 1 5.39 × 10¥5 9,580 5.8 × 10–7

Cyanide .......................................................... 33.6 44.8 1.49 × 10–3

Lead ............................................................... 187 1.24 × 10–4 Not calculable; no reference dose for

lead

Nickel .............................................................. 70.3 93.5 8.9 × 10–2

Total Hazard Quotient for All Waste Constituents.0.187

Total Carcinogenic Risk for the Waste (due

to Cadmium).

1.62 × 10–13

1These levels are all greater than the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) regulatory level in 40 CFR 261.24. A waste cannot be delisted if it exhibits a

hazardous characteristic; therefore, the delisting level for each of these constituents could not be greater than the TC level of 100 for Barium; 1.0

for Cadmium; 5.0 for Chromium; and 5.0 for Lead.

EPA proposes to use the delisting

levels in the TCLP leachate calculated

by the older method using the EPACML

DAF for BMW’s petitioned waste,

because the EPACML levels are more

conservative for this waste. EPA

requests public comment on the

proposal to use the delisting levels

obtained with the EPACML DAF instead

of those calculated by the DRAS, using

the EPACMTP, in combination with the

limits on total concentrations proposed

in the paragraph preceding Table 3B.

C. How Did EPA Use the Multiple

Extraction Procedure (MEP) to Evaluate

This Delisting Petition?

EPA developed the MEP test (SW–846

Method 1320) to help predict the longterm resistance to leaching of stabilized

wastes, which are wastes that have been

treated to reduce the leachability of

hazardous constituents. The MEP

consists of a TCLP extraction of a

sample followed by nine sequential

extractions of the same sample, using a

synthetic acid rain extraction fluid

(prepared by adding a 60/40 weight

mixture of sulfuric acid and nitric acid

to distilled deionized water until the pH

is 3.0 ± 0.2). The sample which is

subjected to the nine sequential

extractions consists of the solid phase

remaining after, and separated from, the

initial TCLP extract. EPA designed the

MEP to simulate multiple washings of

9794 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules

11This estimate is based on the following

calculation for nickel: % nickel leached out over

more than 100 years = 100 × (total number of

milligrams of nickel in all the sample MEP extracts)

÷ the number of milligrams of nickel in the 100-

gram sample that was extracted by the MEP: 100 ×

2 × ( 5.22 +0.299 + 0.234 + 0.654 + 0.267 + 0.084

+ 0.059+ 0.018+ .028+ .01) ÷ 140 = 100 × 13.746

÷140 = 9.8%.

percolating rainfall in the field, and

estimates that these extractions simulate

approximately 1,000 years of rainfall.

(See 47 FR 52687, Nov. 22, 1982.) MEP

results are presented in Table 4 below.

In response to a request by EPA for

additional information, BMW reported

the following practical quantitation

limits in the MEP test: 0.001 mg/l for

cadmium, 0.003 mg/l for lead, 0.01 mg/

l for nickel, and 0.02 for zinc. Table 4

presents the results of analysis of MEP

extracts.

The MEP data in Table 4 indicate that

the petitioned waste would be expected

to leach metals at low and decreasing

concentrations for a period of at least

100 years, and only about 10 per cent

of the amount of metal in the waste

would leach during this time period. 11

The average life of a landfill is

approximately 20 years. (See 56 FR

32993, July 18, 1991; and 56 FR 67197,

Dec. 30, 1991.)

The MEP pH data in Table 4 indicate

that the pH of the petitioned waste

would be expected to lose its alkalinity

over a period of years. However, the

amount of metal in the leachate remains

similar to or lower than the initial TCLP

results, and decreases over time.

TABLE 4.—MULTIPLE EXTRACTION PROCEDURE (SW–846 METHOD 1320) RESULTS FOR BMW’S PETITIONED WASTE 1

Extract No. Cadmium

(Cd)

Lead

(Pb)

Nickel

(Ni)

Zinc

(Zn)

pH 2 (before/

after)

1 (TCLP) ...................................................................... 0.001 0.157 5.22 4.02 8.0/5.7

2 (first extraction of the MEP) ...................................... 1 0.001 U 0.003 U 0.299 0.165 5.6/6.5

3 ................................................................................... 0.001 U 0.003 U 0.234 0.088 5.4/6.6

4 ................................................................................... 0.001 U 0.003 U 0.654 3.25 3.0/6.6

5 ................................................................................... 0.001 U 0.003 U 0.267 5.61 3.0/3.9

6 ................................................................................... 0.001 U 0.007 0.084 1.47 3.5/3.9

7 ................................................................................... 0.001 0.003 U 0.059 0.603 3.2/3.3

8 ................................................................................... 0.001 U 0.003 U 0.018 0.222 3.1/3.2

9 ................................................................................... 0.001 U 0.003 0.028 0.139 2.9/3.1

10 ................................................................................. 0.001 U 0.003 U 0.010 U 0.073 3.0/3.3

1 U = Not detected to level shown.

2 pH is a measure of the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity in an aqueous solution, and is a measure of how acidic or basic (alkaline) a solution is. At 25°C, solutions with pH values less than 7 are acidic; greater than 7 are basic (alkaline); and a pH value of 7 indicates a

neutral solution. In general, metals and their compounds are less soluble in basic (alkaline) solutions. ‘‘Start’’ means pH at start of the extraction

and ‘‘Finish’’ means pH at the end of the extraction.

D. Conclusion

After reviewing BMW’s processes, the

EPA concludes that (1) no hazardous

constituents of concern are likely to be

present in BMW’s waste at levels that

would harm human health and the

environment; 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.

EPA believes that BMW’s petitioned

waste will not harm human health and

the environment when disposed in a

nonhazardous waste landfill if the

delisting levels for land disposal as

proposed in Preamble section II.B. are

met.

EPA proposes to exclude BMW’s

petitioned waste from being listed as

F019, based on descriptions of waste

management and waste history,

evaluation of the results of waste sample

analysis, and on the requirement that

BMW’s petitioned waste must meet

proposed delisting levels before

disposal. Thus, EPA’s proposed

decision is based on verification testing

conditions. If the proposed rule

becomes effective, the exclusion will be

valid only if the petitioner demonstrates

that the petitioned waste meets the

verification testing conditions and

delisting levels in the amended Table 1

of appendix IX of 40 CFR part 261. If the

proposed rule becomes final and EPA

approves that demonstration, the

petitioned waste would not be subject to

regulation under 40 CFR parts 262

through 268 and the permitting

standards of 40 CFR part 270. Although

management of the waste covered by

this petition would, upon final

promulgation, be relieved from Subtitle

C jurisdiction, the waste would remain

a solid waste under RCRA. As such, the

waste must be handled in accordance

with all applicable Federal, State, and

local solid waste management

regulations. Pursuant to RCRA section

3007, EPA may also sample and analyze

the waste to determine if delisting

conditions are met.

III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion

Will This Rule Apply in All States?

This proposed rule, if promulgated,

would be issued under the Federal

(RCRA) delisting program. States,

however, are allowed to impose their

own, non-RCRA regulatory

requirements that are more stringent

than EPA’s, 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

States. Because a petitioner’s waste may

be regulated under a dual system (i.e.,

both Federal and State 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,

BMW must obtain delisting

authorization from that State before the

waste may be managed as nonhazardous

in that State.

IV. Effective Date

This rule, if made final, will become

effective immediately upon 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 the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules 9795

petitioner. 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 sixmonth 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, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

Information collection and recordkeeping 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 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq.) and have been assigned OMB

Control Number 2050–0053.

VI. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note) directs EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory

activities unless to do so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures, and

business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards.

This proposed rulemaking involves

environmental monitoring or

measurement. Consistent with the

Agency’s Performance Based

Measurement System (‘‘PBMS’’), EPA

proposes not to require the use of

specific, prescribed analytical methods,

except when required by regulation in

40 CFR parts 260 through 270. Rather

the Agency plans to allow the use of any

method that meets the prescribed

performance criteria. The PBMS

approach is intended to be more flexible

and cost-effective for the regulated

community; it is also intended to

encourage innovation in analytical

technology and improved data quality.

EPA is not precluding the use of any

method, whether it constitutes a

voluntary consensus standard or not, as

long as it meets the performance criteria

specified.

VII. 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

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 on any

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.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as

Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness

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 that

describes the impact of the rule on small

entities (i.e., 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 a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

This rule, if promulgated, will not

have an adverse economic impact on

any 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,

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.

IX. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

OMB has exempted this proposed rule

from the requirement for OMB review

under section (6) of Executive Order

12866.

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,

9796 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules

and explain why the planned regulation

is preferable to other potentially

effective and reasonably feasible

alternatives considered by the Agency.

This 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 the

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 of 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. Today’s

proposed rulemaking does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this proposed rule.

XII. Submission to Congress and

General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States.

The EPA is not required to submit a

rule report regarding today’s action

under section 801 because this is a rule

of particular applicability, etc. Section

804 exempts from section 801 the

following types of rules: rules of

particular applicability; rules relating to

agency management or personnel; and

rules of agency organization,

procedures, or practice that do not

substantially affect the rights or

obligations of non-agency parties. See 5

U.S.C. 804(3). This rule will become

effective on the date of publication as a

final rule in the Federal Register.

XIII. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’

‘‘Policies that have federalism

implications’’ is defined in the

Executive Order to include regulations

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on

the States, on the relationship between

the national government and the States,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government.’’

Under section 6 of Executive Order

13132, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications, that

impose substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the Federal government provides

the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and

local governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. The EPA also may not issue

a regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This action does not have federalism

implication. It will not have a

substantial direct effect on States, on the

relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132, because it

affects only one facility.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

Hazardous waste, Recycling,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

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

6921(f).

Dated: January 4, 2001.

Jewell Grubbs,

Acting Director, Waste Management 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, part 261

add the following wastestream in

alphabetical order by facility to read as

follows:

Appendix IX—Wastes Excluded Under

§§ 260.20 and 260.22.

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description

*******

BMW Manufacturing Corporation.Greer, South Carolina ........ Wastewater treatment sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019) that BMW Manufacturing Corporation (BMW) generates by treating wastewater from automobile

assembly plant located on Highway 101 South in Greer, South Carolina. This is a

conditional exclusion for up to 2,850 cubic yards of waste (hereinafter referred to

as ‘‘BMW Sludge’’) that will be generated each year and disposed in a Subtitle D

landfill after [insert date of final rule.] With prior approval by the EPA, following a

public comment period, BMW may also beneficially reuse the sludge. BMW must

demonstrate that the following conditions are met for the exclusion to be valid.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules 9797

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued

Facility Address Waste description

(1) Delisting Levels: All leachable concentrations for these metals and cyanide must

not exceed the following levels (ppm): Barium—100; Cadmium—0.35; Chromium—5; Cyanide—14, Lead—1.05; and Nickel—51. These metal and cyanide

concentrations must be measured in the waste leachate obtained by the method

specified in 40 CFR 261.24, except that for cyanide, deionized water must be the

leaching medium. The total concentration of cyanide (total, not amenable) in the

waste, not the waste leachate, must not exceed 200 mg/kg. Cyanide concentrations in waste or leachate must be measured by the method specified in 40 CFR

268.40, Note 7. The total concentrations of metals in the waste, not the waste

leachate, must not exceed the following levels (ppm): Barium—2,000; Cadmium—

500; Chromium—1,000; Lead—2,000; and Nickel—20,000.

(2) Verification Testing Requirements: Sample collection and analyses, including

quality control procedures, must be performed according to SW–846 methodologies, where specified by regulations in 40 CFR Parts 260–270. Otherwise, methods must meet Performance Based Measurement System Criteria in which the

Data Quality Objectives are to demonstrate that representative samples of the

BMW Sludge meet the delisting levels in Condition (1).

(A) Initial Verification Testing: BMW must conduct verification sampling initially when

test runs of aluminum vehicle parts are run and again when production of vehicles

with aluminum body parts commences. For verification sampling during the test

runs, BMW must collect and analyze a minimum of four composite samples of the

dewatered sludge that is generated from wastewater treated during the time of the

test runs. For verification sampling at the initiation of the production of vehicle

models with aluminum parts, BMW must collect a minimum of four composite

samples from the first roll-off box of sludge generated after production of automobiles with aluminum parts reaches 50 units per day. BMW must analyze for the

constituents listed in Condition (1). If BMW chooses to beneficially reuse sludge,

and the reuse has been approved by EPA, following a public comment period,

verification testing of the sludge must consist of analyzing a minimum of four composite samples of the sludge for the constituents listed in Condition (1).

(B) Subsequent Verification Testing: If the initial verification testing in Condition

(2)(A) is successful for both the test runs and the commencement of production,

i.e., delisting levels of Condition (1) are met for all of the composite samples,

BMW must implement an annual testing program to demonstrate that constituent

concentrations measured in the TCLP extract and total concentrations measured

in the unextracted waste do not exceed the delisting levels established in Condition (1).

(3) Waste Holding and Handling: BMW must store as hazardous all BMW Sludge

generated until verification testing, as specified in Condition (2)(A), is completed

and valid analyses demonstrate that Condition (1) is satisfied. If the levels of constituents measured in the composite samples of BMW Sludge do not exceed the

levels set forth in Condition (1), then the BMW Sludge is non-hazardous and must

be managed in accordance with all applicable solid waste regulations. If constituent levels in a composite sample exceed any of the delisting levels set forth in

Condition (1), the batch of BMW Sludge generated during the time period corresponding to this sample must be managed and disposed of in accordance with

Subtitle C of RCRA.

(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: BMW must notify EPA in writing when significant changes in the manufacturing or wastewater treatment processes are implemented. EPA will determine whether these changes will result in additional constituents of concern. If so, EPA will notify BMW in writing that the BMW Sludge

must be managed as hazardous waste F019 until BMW has demonstrated that

the wastes meet the delisting levels set forth in Condition (1) and any levels established by EPA for the additional constituents of concern, and BMW has received written approval from EPA. If EPA determines that the changes do not result in additional constituents of concern, EPA will notify BMW, in writing, that

BMW must verify that the BMW Sludge continues to meet Condition (1) delisting

levels.

9798 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued

Facility Address Waste description

(5) Data Submittals: Data obtained in accordance with Condition (2)(A) must be submitted to Jewell Grubbs, Chief, RCRA Enforcement and Compliance Branch, Mail

Code: 4WD–RCRA, U.S. EPA, Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61

Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. This submission is due no later than 60

days after filling the first roll-off box of BMW Sludge to be disposed in accordance

with delisting Conditions (1) through (7) for both the test runs and again for the

commencement of production. Records of analytical data from Condition (2) must

be compiled, summarized, and maintained by BMW for a minimum of three years,

and must be furnished upon request by EPA or the State of South Carolina, and

made available for inspection. Failure to submit the required data within the specified time period or maintain the required records for the specified time will be considered by EPA, at its discretion, sufficient basis to revoke the exclusion to the extent directed by EPA. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).

(6) Reopener Language: (A) If, at any time after disposal of the delisted waste,

BMW 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 the

delisting verification testing is at a level higher than the delisting level allowed by

EPA in granting the petition, BMW must report the data, in writing, to EPA within

10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. (B) If the testing of

the waste, as required by Condition (2)(B), does not meet the delisting requirements of Condition (1), BMW must report the data, in writing, to EPA within 10

days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. (C) Based on the information described in paragraphs (6)(A) or (6)(B) and any other information received from any source, EPA will make a preliminary determination as to whether

the reported information requires that EPA take 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. (D) If EPA determines that the reported information does require

Agency action, EPA will notify the facility in writing of the action believed necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a

statement of the proposed action and a statement providing BMW with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed action is not necessary.

BMW shall have 10 days from the date of EPA’s notice to present such information.

(E) Following the receipt of information from BMW, as described in paragraph

(6)(D), or if no such information is received within 10 days, EPA will issue a final

written determination describing the Agency actions that are necessary to protect

human health or the environment, given the information received in accordance

with paragraphs (6)(A) or (6)(B). Any required action described in EPA’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless EPA provides otherwise.

(7) Notification Requirements: BMW must provide a one-time written notification to

any State Regulatory Agency in a State to which or through which the delisted

waste described above will be transported, at least 60 days prior to the commencement of such activities. Failure to provide such a notification will result in a

violation of the delisting conditions and a possible revocation of the decision to

delist.

*******

[FR Doc. 01–1049 Filed 2–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 20 and 22

[WT Docket No. 01–14; FCC 01–28]

2000 Biennial Regulatory Review—

Spectrum Aggregation Limits for

Commercial Mobile Radio Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, we open a

proceeding to reexamine the need for

Commercial Mobile Radio Services

(CMRS) spectrum aggregation limits.

Specifically, we seek comment on

whether the CMRS spectrum cap and

the cellular cross-interest rule should be

eliminated, modified, or retained, based

on the public interest standard set forth

under section 11 of the Communications

Act.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

April 13, 2001 and reply comments are

due on or before March 14, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Rowan, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, at (202)

418–7240.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Federal

Communications Commission’s Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC

01–28, in WT Docket No. 01–14,

adopted on January 19, 2001 and

released on January 23, 2001. The full

text of this NPRM is available for

inspection and copying during normal