The sample contained a high level of solids, reflecting the facility's practice of managing all waste solids and process wastewaters in the same unit. To isolate the impact of the wastewater on the environment from that of the sludge, we conducted the SPLP on the waste matrix, and separately analyzed the filtrate and the leachate generated from the leaching step. We are proposing to use the filtrate analysis as representative of the wastewater portion of the commingled waste matrix. The analytical results for the constituents found to be present in the filtrate at levels exceeding HBLs and/ or AWQC are presented below in Table III± 49.

TABLE III± 49.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF COMMINGLED WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE AND SULFATE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE [mg/ L]

Constituent of concern Detected levels in sample MI± WW± 04 HBL AWQC Total SPLP Filtrate Arsenic ............................................................................................................. 0.022 <0.005 (1) 0.0007 0.000018 Manganese ...................................................................................................... 119 9.95 0.73 0.05 Thallium ........................................................................................................... 0.005 0.004 0.001 0.0017 (1) 1/ 2 the detection limit was used as input to the risk assessment.

How Was the Groundwater to Surface Water Risk Assessment Established?

We calculated infiltration rates for the surface impoundment, and divided this flow rate into the flow rate of the river to determine potential concentrations of the two metals of concern (see preceding table) in the river as a result of recharge with contaminated groundwater. The results of this screening (available in the Risk Assessment Background Document) demonstrate that concentrations of the constituents of concern are likely to be well below risk thresholds for human health and aquatic life in surface water. How Was the Groundwater Ingestion Risk Assessment Established?

See the comparable discussion for the gypsum (III. F. 14. e( 4)). The resultant risks were calculated and are summarized in Table III± 50.

TABLE III± 50.Ð GROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR COMMINGLED WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE AND SULFATE PROCESSES, TITANIUM DIOXIDE Constituent of concern 90th percentile 95th percentile Adult Child Adult Child Arsenic cancer risk .......................................................................................................... 5E± 08 3E± 08 2E± 07 1E± 07 Manganese HQ ................................................................................................................ 0.009 0.02 0.02 0.04 What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste?

We propose not to list commingled wastewaters from the production of titanium dioxide from the chloride and sulfate processes. The results of our risk assessment demonstrate that this waste category does not pose risks warranting listing as hazardous waste. Arsenic levels at the receptor result in cancer risks well below 1E± 06, and manganese levels at the receptor are similarly well below a hazard quotient of one. (8) Wastewater treatment sludges from commingled chloride and sulfateprocess wastewaters.

How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed?

Two facilities, sited in Georgia and Maryland, generate this waste category, and after de watering, place their sludges in on site landfills. Over 159,000 MT of this waste was generated in 1998.

What Is the Bevill Exemption Status of This Waste Category?

As discussed above, the chloride process waste solids are exempt mineral processing wastes, to the extent that they are associated with the titanium tetrachloride process. Data provided by these two facilities, however, show that these waste contain at least 35% nonexempt solids. Our quantitative assessment of the potential risk associated with these non exempt solids is provided here. The wastewater treatment solids at the Maryland site are derived from at least four primary sources. Two residuals from the chloride process contribute exempt solids (i. e., solids slurry and scrubber water from the reaction area) as identified in 261.4( b)( 7)( ii)( S) and discussed above in III. F. 14. e( 2). Two scrubber waters from the calcination 55 and finishing portion of the sulfate process contribute nonexempt solids to the wastewater treatment solids (sulfate process wastes VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55758 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules are not exempt because, as described above, the sulfate process wastestreams did not meet the high volume/ low toxicity criteria noted in 54 FR 36592 (September 1, 1989)). Additional potential sources of minor amounts of solids are other wastewaters that are treated in this facility's wastewater treatment system, including cooling water, stormwater, drainage water and landfill leachate. Based on the information reported in this facility's § 3007 survey response, we estimate that their wastewater treatment solids are more than 35% non exempt.

The wastewater treatment solids at the Georgia site are derived from at least six sources. Two residuals from the chloride process contribute exempt solids (i. e., waste acid from the chloride reaction area and supernatant from the chloride solids impoundment) (261.4( b)( 7)( ii)( S)). Finishing wastewaters from the chloride process contribute non exempt solids (these wastewaters are generated from the chemical manufacturing end of the production process). At least three wastewaters from the sulfate process contribute non exempt solids. Based on the information reported in this facility's § 3007 survey response, we estimate that their wastewater treatment solids are significantly more than 35% non exempt.

What Management Scenarios Were Assessed?

We collected samples of both facilities' wastes and therefore assessed the management practices at the two sites individually. The Maryland facility treats its wastewater in surface impoundments; the sludge is generated from a filter press, and the facility then places the sludge in an on site landfill. We assessed potential groundwater releases to both surface water and drinking water wells from this landfill. The Georgia facility dredges its sludge from its surface impoundments, filter presses the solids, places the filter solids in piles for further drainage and air drying, and then places the filter solids in an industrial on site landfill. We assessed the groundwater pathways for the landfill and pile, and the air pathway for the pile. (Note that we elsewhere assess the groundwater impact of the Maryland surface impoundments using sampling data for the wastewater in that unit. See III. F. 14. e( 7)). All pathways for the Georgia facility screened out and are not discussed further in this notice (see the `` Titanium Dioxide Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination'' for details of this screening).

How Was This Waste Category Characterized?

Both facilities were selected for sampling and analysis. Both samples were collected from filter cake discharge of the filter press. We conducted total, TCLP and SPLP analyses on the waste matrix. We used the SPLP results (rather than the TCLP) to assess potential releases to groundwater and surface water because there is no potential for contact with municipal landfill leachate in the reported management practices for these two facilities. Given the large waste quantities reported for this category, we believe it would be prohibitively expensive for off site disposal to occur. We used total results to assess potential air releases from the piles, and found no significant risks. The SPLP analytical results used to assess groundwater releases at the Maryland facility that generates commingled chloride/ sulfate wastewater treatment sludge (as described in the previous paragraph) are presented below in Table III± 51.

TABLE III± 51.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF COMMINGLED WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGES FROM CHLORIDE AND SULFATE PROCESSES, TITANIUM DIOXIDE Constituent of concern Detected SPLP levels in MI± SO± 01 (mg/ L) HBL (mg/ L) AWQC (mg/ L)

Aluminum ................................................................................................................................................. 0.24 16 0.087 Arsenic ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 0.00005 0.0007 0.000018 Manganese .............................................................................................................................................. 2.63 0.73 0.05 Thallium ................................................................................................................................................... 1 0.003 0.001 0.0017 1 Estimated results are less than the typical laboratory reporting limit, but are greater than the calculated instrument detection limits.

In addition to the metals described above, our analytical data show that this waste contains polychlorinated dioxins and furans (PCDD/ F). These data are provided in the background document for the titanium dioxide sector. As discussed previously (III. F. 14. d), we believe that these contaminants are clearly associated with the exempt solids contained in this waste, and thus we did not assess them. Samples collected at these two facilities bear out this association with the exempt solids. The Maryland facility, which does not segregate any of its exempt solids from other wastewater treatment solids, has significantly higher PCDD/ F levels than the Georgia facility (i. e., several orders of magnitude), which segregates the majority of its exempts solids from its wastewater treatment solids.

How Was the Groundwater to Surface Water Risk Assessment Established?

The Maryland facility selected for modeling this scenario was also modeled for several other wastes, and is described further in section III. F. 14. e( 5) above. We calculated infiltration rates for the unlined landfill, and divided this flow rate into the flow rate of the river to determine potential concentrations of the four metals of concern (see preceding table) in the river as a result of recharge with contaminated groundwater. The results of this screening (available in the Risk Assessment Background Document) demonstrate that concentrations of the constituents of concern are likely to be well below risk thresholds in surface water.

How Was the Groundwater Ingestion Risk Assessment Established?

The facility selected for modeling this scenario was also modeled for several other wastes, and is described further in section III. F. 14. e( 4) above. The resultant risks were calculated and are summarized in Table III± 52.

VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55759 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 56 Surface impoundments pose essentially inherent risks of groundwater contamination due to the hydraulic pressure created by the contained liquids. Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 919 F. 2d 158, 166 (D. C. Cir. 1992). Material that is placed in a surface impoundment, where it is capable of posing a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed, `` by leaching into the ground, is `discarded material' and hence a solid waste. '' (AMC II, 907 F. 2d) Although secondary materials may have value and be reused, their value does not protect them from being considered solid wastes for the purposes of RCRA regulation if they are discarded prior to use (API, 906 F. 2d at 741 n. 16). 57 54 FR 36616, September 1, 1989. 58 All wastes from ancillary activities are not uniquely associated with extraction/ beneficiation and processing of ores and minerals (see 45 FR 76619, November 19, 1980, and 63 FR 28590, May 26, 1998). TABLE III± 52.Ð GROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR COMMINGLED WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGES FROM CHLORIDE AND SULFATE PROCESSES, TITANIUM DIOXIDE Manganese HQ Thallium HQ Adult risk Child risk Adult risk Child Risk 90th .......................................................................................................................... 0. 1 0.3 0.1 0.3 95th .......................................................................................................................... 0. 2 0.5 0.2 0.4 What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste? We are proposing not to list commingled wastewater treatment sludges from chloride and sulfate processes because our modeling of potential groundwater releases shows no risk at levels which warrant listing this waste as hazardous. No scenario modeled (groundwater to surface water and groundwater to drinking water wells) showed risk at levels of regulatory concern. (9) Waste acid (ferric chloride) from the chloride ilmenite process.

How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed? All three facilities that utilize the chloride ilmenite process generate this waste category. The DeLisle, Mississippi facility identifies the waste as characteristic for corrosivity, chromium and lead and disposes of its waste in an on site underground injection well. The Tennessee facility pipes its ferric chloride to an on site sodium chloride plant. Both the Mississippi and Tennessee facilities generate the majority of their exempt mineral processing solids from the filtration of this waste acid. The Delaware facility's process is slightly different in that the majority of their exempt solids are generated prior to the generation of the waste acid, and only a relatively small portion of their solids are generated from the removal of solids from this waste. The Delaware facility adds a processing chemical to their waste acid, removes solids, stores the acid in tanks (as well as an on site surface impoundment when their tank capacity is exceeded), and sells the acid to a broker for resale as a wastewater and drinking water treatment reagent. However, EPA is not at this time assessing whether the ferric chloride is a legitimate product. We did not attempt to address this complex and site specific issue in this proposal. We note that the Delaware facility uses a surface impoundment to store a portion of the ferric chloride prior to its sale as a water and wastewater treatment reagent. EPA has often considered land based units, and impoundments in particular, to be associated with the discard of wastes, rather than the storage of products, because of their potential for releases to the environment. 56 In addition, we sampled the ferric chloride at the Delaware facility and found that it contains a variety of metals, as well as some chlorinated dioxins and furans. (See the background document for this sector for more details on this sampling and analysis). These factors may lead to concerns about the legitimacy of the use of this material as a drinking water and wastewater treatment reagent. However, as explained below, we do not need to resolve this issue to make a decision about listing ferric chloride. This waste routinely exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity and the toxicity characteristic for chromium and lead. All three generators of the ferric chloride waste acid acknowledge the hazardous nature of this waste. Each generator reported pH levels at 1 or less, and the one facility that disposes of this waste via deep well injection assigns three separate characteristic codes to this material. EPA sampled the ferric chloride at the Delaware facility, and both EPA and the facility analyzed the waste. The results showed that this material exhibits the characteristics of D001, D007, and D008.

What Is the Bevill Status of This Waste?

Ferric chloride waste acid is a liquid mineral processing waste that did not meet the high volume/ low toxicity criteria for determining eligibility for the Bevill exemption and therefore is not Bevill exempt (see 63 FR 28601). What Is the Bevill Status of Solids Removed From This Waste? Prior to disposal or reuse of their waste acids, both the Mississippi and Tennessee plants filter their waste acid to remove the exempt solids. At the Delaware site, however, the waste acid is processed via the addition of a chemical prior to solids removal. The purpose of the chemical addition is to modify the properties of the waste acid to enhance its value as a saleable potable water and wastewater treatment reagent. The addition of this chemical at the Delaware plant marks the end of titanium tetrachloride production (i. e., mineral processing) and the beginning of ferric chloride production (assuming ferric chloride is a legitimate product). Ferric chloride production can be considered either chemical manufacturing 57 or an ancillary process. 58 Consequently, as explained below in section III. F. 14. e( 10), solids removed from the ferric chloride at the Delaware plant are not Bevill exempt.

What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste? We are proposing to not list this waste and rely instead on the existing regulatory controls provided by the hazardous waste characteristics. Data from all three facilities clearly demonstrates that this waste exhibits several of the characteristics. At this time we have not determined whether any of the facilities are out of compliance. State and EPA authorities are examining these sites in detail for compliance with the existing regulations. Listing would not serve to better establish this jurisdiction. The Mississippi facility that injects this waste identifies the waste as hazardous and manages it as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C regulations. Within the context of this consent decree, we did not investigate in depth the Tennessee facility's use of this material in production of sodium VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55760 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules chloride (an inorganic chemical not identified as one of the 14 products of concern in the consent decree) because there was no known exposure route associated with the management of the material prior to inserting it into a nonconsent decree production process. As discussed previously, the Delaware facility stores the material in a surface impoundment. EPA can address concerns, if appropriate, by the use of enforcement, based on the existing characteristics associated with this material. In addition, the questions framed above about the potential legitimacy of this facility's use of ferric chloride as a product and its storage in a surface impoundment are equally relevant whether the ferric chloride is listed as a hazardous waste or is known to exhibit the characteristics of hazardous waste. Therefore we have decided to not list this waste as a hazardous waste and rely on the hazardous characteristics of the material for any necessary control. (10) Non exempt nonwastewaters from the chloride ilmenite process.

How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed?

All three chloride ilmenite facilities generate wastes that contain commingled exempt and non exempt components. Depending on the specific configuration of the individual plants, these wastes are composed to different degrees of exempt and non exempt solids, as described further below. Solids are generated in several places in the chloride ilmenite process: ÐCoke and ore solids are removed from the gaseous titanium tetrachloride product stream, quenched and neutralized. While the Agency believes this stream is largely exempt, we note that any contributions to this stream from the disposal of the vanadium waste is non exempt. ÐSolids are generated during wastewater treatment and are nonexempt to the extent they are generated from oxidation and finishing wastewaters. ÐCoke and ore solids can also be generated from the removal of solids from waste acid. These residuals may contain a non exempt portion if they are partially comprised of vanadium waste. These solids cannot be exempt if they are removed from the waste acid after the initiation of chemical manufacturing and/ or ancillary operations. We assessed these various sources of non exempt materials as one waste category because of the expected similarities among these materials and the commingled management practices used by these facilities. The total nonexempt portion of this waste category is approximately 10% with variations among the three sites. The specific sources of non exempt materials for each of the three chloride ilmenite facilities is described below. All three facilities generate nonexempt vanadium waste when they separate vanadium compounds from titanium tetrachloride. The facilities reinsert these materials into the reaction area. Titanium tetrachloride is recovered and maybe reused; however, the remainder of this waste is not reused and is incorporated into the unreacted coke and ore solids stream from the reaction area, the solids separated from the ferric chloride, or the ferric chloride. This vanadium waste is not exempt because it is not a solid. However we were not able to determine the volume contribution of this vanadium waste to the various wastes into which it is ultimately incorporated. Hence, the estimates of total exempt solids provided below are likely to be underestimated. (This waste is also discussed in III. F. 14. e( 14) below.) The Delaware facility combines and neutralizes three sources of solids (reactor solids, solids removed from ferric chloride waste acid, and solids from wastewater treatment), and markets the resulting material as `` Iron Rich'' material. As asserted by the company, uses of Iron Rich include structural fill, landfill caps and covers, and construction of dikes for containment of dredged spoils on the Delaware River. The facility may also stabilize some portion of the Iron Rich with fly ash prior to sale. Each component of the Delaware commingled residuals is described in the following paragraphs. The majority of the commingled Delaware solids are unreacted coke and ore materials that are removed from the gaseous titanium tetrachloride product stream after the reactor. These `` reactor solids'' make up more than 80% of the volume of commingled `` Iron Rich'' at this facility. This stream is comprised of exempt chloride process solids and nonexempt vanadium waste. The Delaware facility also removes solids from its ferric chloride. This solids removal step takes place after the facility incorporates a chemical additive into the ferric chloride. We have concluded that the use of this chemical constitutes chemical processing that is outside the scope of the Bevill exemption (see 54 FR 36592, September 1, 1989 and previous waste acid discussion in III. F. 14( e)( 9)). In addition, this stream is partially derived from the Delaware facility's non exempt vanadium waste. These ferric chloride solids are not exempt. They make up approximately 10% of the commingled `` Iron Rich''. The Delaware facility also uses scrubbers at various points in its process. Some solids make their way into scrubber waters. When the facility treats these wastewaters, the solids precipitate and the resultant wastewater treatment solids are added to the two wastes described above to form `` Iron Rich''. Solids from the scrubber used to treat gasses from the titanium tetrachloride reactor are Bevill exempt. Solids from scrubbers associated with oxidation and finishing (steps that take place after the formation of titanium tetrachloride) are not exempt. Based on facility data, we estimate that approximately 1.5% of the total volume of `` Iron Rich'' consists of non exempt solids from wastewater treatment. The Tennessee facility generates solids from ferric chloride filtration and from wastewater treatment. The filter solids are exempt (261.4( b)( 7)( ii)( S)) because such filtration simply removes exempt solids. Unlike the processing that occurs at the Delaware plant, no chemical manufacturing is taking place at this step at the Tennessee plant. The facility landfills these ferric chloride solids as a discrete wastestream; we do not assess this exempt waste further in this rule. This facility commingles wastewaters from both the titanium tetrachloride and titanium dioxide sides of the process, and the resultant wastewater treatment sludge is thus comprised of exempt and non exempt sources. The Tennessee facility reported estimated percent solids data for most of their wastewaters. We reviewed these data and determined that a significant portion (74%) of the resultant sludge would be nonexempt (see Titanium Dioxide Listing Background Document for calculations). These nonexempt solids are within the scope of today's proposal. We sampled the commingled exempt and nonexempt waste and describe our assessment of this material in this section. The Mississippi facility also generates exempt solids from filtering ferric chloride prior to deep well injection. No chemical manufacturing occurs. These solids are placed in a dedicated on site landfill, and are not assessed further in this rule. The facility also operates a wastewater treatment system which is similar to the Tennessee facility in that it commingles wastewaters from condensation and purification (associated with the titanium tetrachloride production process), as well as oxidation and finishing VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55761 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules (associated with the titanium dioxide production process). The commingled wastewaters are managed in on site surface impoundments and the dredged solids from these units (comprised of exempt and nonexempt materials) are placed in an on site landfill. The facility provided detailed information regarding the amounts of solids present in each of the wastewaters managed in this system, demonstrating that there is a small contribution (~3%) of non exempt solids (i. e., solids in wastewaters from oxidation and finishing) in the wastewater treatment sludge. We did not select this facility for site visits and thus did not sample this waste. We believe our sampling and modeling of the Tennessee and Delaware sites is an appropriate surrogate for this waste given the similar nature of the processes at the three facilities (with particular similarities between the wastewater treatment facilities at Mississippi and Tennessee). Furthermore, the percentages of non exempt solids in the commingled wastes at the Tennessee and Delaware sites are higher than at the Mississippi site. What Management Scenarios Were Assessed?

The Delaware facility asserts that there are a variety of end uses for the Iron Rich. The predominant recent use has been for the construction of dikes to contain dredged river sediments at U. S. Army Corp of Engineer disposal sites in the vicinity of the titanium dioxide plant. We assessed this scenario as comparable to an industrial D landfill scenario. The Iron Rich has also been used as daily cover at a municipal landfill (demonstration project) and as final cover for a closed on site landfill. These uses clearly constitute disposal. Other proposed uses include use as subsidence fill at a closed municipal landfill, structural fill by the local Port Authority, surcharge for road bed compaction, and construction of a wildlife refuge at the site of the closed on site industrial landfill. These uses all involve placement on the ground and also appear to also be uses that constitute disposal (see 40 CFR 266.20). We chose to model risks for disposal in an off site industrial D landfill because this seemed to fit the largest number of the varied potential disposal or landbased use scenarios. We believe the municipal landfill scenario is also relevant. Our assessment addresses the municipal scenario qualitatively. These scenarios were assessed for potential releases to drinking water wells and air releases. In addition, we modeled the on site landfill at the Tennessee facility for potential releases to surface water.

How Was This Waste Category Characterized?

We collected samples of this waste at the Tennessee and Delaware facilities. For the Tennessee facility, we collected the sample directly from a holding/ dewatering pond where the dredged wastewater treatment solids are dewatered prior to landfilling on site. We collected the sample from the Delaware facility directly from the Iron Rich dewatering unit press; this sample consisted of commingled chlorinator solids, ferric chloride solids, and wastewater treatment solids. This material is sometimes mixed with fly ash prior to use; our sample was collected prior to fly ash addition. Both samples were analyzed for total, TCLP and SPLP constituent analyses. These data are summarized below in Table III± 54 for the constituents of concern that were present in the wastes at levels exceeding the health based levels and/ or ambient water quality criteria.

TABLE III± 54.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT SOLIDS FROM THE CHLORIDE ILMENITE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE Constituent of concern Detected levels, Delaware site Detected levels, Tennessee site HBL (mg/ L) AWQC (mg/ L) Soil screening levels (mg/ kg) 1 Total (mg/ kg) TCLP (mg/ L) SPLP (mg/ L) Total (mg/ kg) SPLP (mg/ L) Human health Aquatic life Antimony ...................................... 0.9 2 0.021 0.02 0.7 0.021 0.006 0.014 n/ a 32 Arsenic ......................................... 2.2 <0.0035 2 0.001 2.8 3 <0.0035 0.0007 1.8E± 05 0.15 4.7 Barium .......................................... 178 2 2.4 0.92 49.6 0.12 1.1 n/ a n/ a 5600 Boron ............................................ 30 1.7 0.61 24.5 0.45 1.4 n/ a n/ a 7,200 Lead ............................................. 309 2 0.032 2 0.0032 42.4 2 0.002 0.015 ................ 0.0025 400 Manganese .................................. 10,600 252 16.3 2,890 1.5 0.7 0.05 n/ a 4 3,800 Nickel ........................................... 91.8 0.5 <0.005 59.8 0.007 0.31 0.61 0.052 1,600 Thallium ........................................ 3.7 0.28 0.012 7.2 <0.0022 0.001 0.0017 n/ a 6.4 Vanadium ..................................... 240 2 0.0003 <0.005 1,060 <0.005 0.14 n/ a n/ a 720 n/ a: not applicable. 1 Soil ingestion health based levels. 2 Results are less than the typical laboratory reporting limit, but are greater than the calculated instrument detection limits. 3 One half the detection limit was used as model input. 4 The air characteristic level is 3,000 mg/ kg at 25m and drops to 30,000 at 150m.

VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55762 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules In addition, our analytical data show that chlorinated dioxins and furans are present in these wastes. As discussed previously, we believe these compounds are associated with the exempt solids. However, the Delaware waste contains the ferric chloride solids; these solids have lost their exempt status because of the facility's chemical manufacturing/ ancillary activities necessary for the production of ferric chloride for sale as a water and wastewater treatment reagent. As a result, we have considered the chlorinated dioxin and furan content of the waste as part of today's listing determination. The PCDD/ PCDF analytical results for the Delaware site are summarized below (detected homologs only) in Table III± 55.

TABLE III± 55.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT SOLIDS FROM THE CHLORIDE ILMENITE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE CHLORINATED DIBENZO P DIOXINS (CDD) AND FURANS (CDF)

Constituent of concern Total Detected levels in Delaware waste (ng/ kg, wet basis)

2378 TetraCDF ......................... 12.2 12378 PentaCDF ...................... 21.8 23478 PentaCDF ...................... 48.1 123478 HexaCDF ..................... 237 123678 HexaCDF ..................... 8.1 234678 HexaCDF ..................... 2.5 123789 HexaCDF ..................... 5.6 1234678 HeptaCDF .................. 189 TABLE III± 55.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT SOLIDS FROM THE CHLORIDE ILMENITE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE CHLORINATED DIBENZO P DIOXINS (CDD) AND FURANS (CDF)Ð Continued Constituent of concern Total Detected levels in Delaware waste (ng/ kg, wet basis)

1234789 HeptaCDF .................. 126 OctaCDF ................................... 24,000 OctaCDD .................................. 22.2 2378± TetraCDD Equivalent 1 .... 57.2 1 12378± TetraCDD equivalent calculated using the World Health Organization Toxic Equivalency Factors (WHO± TEF). Van den Berg, et al. 1998. Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for Human and Wildlife. Environmental Health Perspectives v. 106, n. 12, pp. 775± 792. December.

How Was the Groundwater to Surface Water Risk Assessment Established? The Tennessee facility is bounded to the west by the Tennessee River. The facility indicated that the overall groundwater flow is toward the river. There have been several projects to determine placement of down gradient monitoring wells for individual on site landfill units. These borings indicate that the groundwater elevation declines to the northwest towards the river. In addition, a contract geologist familiar with the local hydrogeology has indicated that shallow groundwater flow will generally follow the natural topography. A ridgeline running north and south is located just east of the facility boundary. This ridge is approximately 200 feet higher in elevation than the elevation at the facility. Based on this topography, we expect that the groundwater flow direction is to the west towards the river. We calculated the concentrations in the river that would result from discharge of contaminated ground water by estimating the infiltration rate for the unlined landfill, and (given the area of the landfill) diluting the resulting leachate volume into the river under various design flow conditions. The results of this screening level analysis (available in the Risk Assessment Background Document) demonstrate that concentrations of the constituents of concern in the river are likely to be well below the national AWQC for human health and aquatic life for these constituents.

How Was the Groundwater Ingestion Risk Assessment Established?

The Delaware facility reported actual or contemplated use of the Iron Rich at a variety of landfills and land placement usages in the general vicinity of the plant. We used our usual distance towell assumptions for an off site landfill, and assumed hydrogeologic conditions that are representative of the principal soil and aquifer types present regionally (within a 100 mile radius) of the facility. The resultant risk assessment results are presented below in Table III± 56.

TABLE III± 56.Ð GROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR NON WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDEILMENITE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE Constituents of concern Hazard quotient or cancer risk 90th% adult 90th% child 95th% adult 95th% child Antimony .................................................................................................................. 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.8 Arsenic (cancer risk) ................................................................................................ 3E± 07 2E± 07 1E± 06 9E± 07 Manganese .............................................................................................................. 0.8 1.6 1.6 3.3 Thallium ................................................................................................................... 0.7 1. 4 1.1 2.4 What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste?

We propose to list as hazardous the non exempt portion of the solid wastes generated from the production of titanium dioxide via the chlorideilmenite process. This listing covers the non exempt portions of the wastewater treatment solids generated at all three facilities, any non exempt portions of the chlorinator solids (e. g., any mass derived from the vanadium wastes), and ferric chloride solids generated at the Delaware facility. To the extent that these listed materials remain commingled with solids that would otherwise be exempt, the entire commingled mass is subject to the listing (see § 261.3( b)( 2)). Our risk results indicate that metals in these materials leach at levels that may pose a risk to human health and the environment. Specifically, in the commingled wastes, the risks exceed an HQ of one for both manganese (3.3) and thallium (2.4) at the 95th percentile; the risks similarly exceed an HQ of one for both manganese (1.6) and thallium (1.4) at the 90th percentile. In addition, the management practices reported for this waste, particularly as reported for the Delaware site, are expected to provide less control than the scenario modeled (i. e., an industrial landfill). Potential future management practices include use at municipal landfills for interim and final cover, as well as subsidence fill at a closed municipal landfill. These scenarios, particularly the interim cover scenario, indicate that the waste may come in contact with municipal landfill leachate in the future, if not listed. The TCLP results for this waste indicate even VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55763 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 59 EPA is currently evaluating the health risks from 2,3,7,8 TCDD and once the review process is completed, EPA may re examine the soil ingestion HBL. See http:// www. epa. gov. ncea. dioxin. htm for additional information. 60 See information in EPA's IRIS database, which may be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ iris, and `` Risk Assessment Support to the Listing Determinations for the Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes'' (August 2000) in the docket for today's rule. higher mobility of metals than those modeled for the industrial landfill scenario using the SPLP. The TCLP concentrations of manganese and thallium exceed the SPLP levels by factors of 15 fold and 23 fold, respectively. We expect, therefore, that HQs resulting from disposal in a landfill with municipal waste would likely be higher by an order of magnitude than the industrial landfill scenario we modeled. The modeling presented above uses the entire waste volume reported for the Delaware facility's Iron Rich. We used this volume because it corresponds to the sample that we collected of this material, and there is considerable uncertainty on the portion of the waste that would be Bevill exempt. (This uncertainty is related to the estimated nature of the solids contributions provided by the facilities and the variability reported between the facilities.) We conducted a supplemental analysis to determine how sensitive our modeling results are to changes in volume, in recognition that we are only proposing at this time to list approximately 10% of the current Iron Rich volume (the balance of the Delaware site's waste being exempt and outside the scope of today's listing determination). These results, presented below in Table III± 57, show that the risks are somewhat sensitive to the volume modeled, but the risks are not reduced below EPA's HQ threshold of one for noncarcinogens. In other words, if the facility were to segregate all exempt solids from the materials being proposed for listing prior to disposal, the remaining volume could still pose risk to human health and the environment. Further, as noted above, based on the TCLP results, the manganese and thallium HQs would be an order of magnitude higher in a municipal landfill scenario.

TABLE III± 57.Ð REDUCED VOLUME ANALYSIS; GROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR NONWASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE ILMENITE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE Constituents of concern Hazard quotient or cancer risk 90th % adult 90th % child 95th % adult 95th % child Antimony .................................................................................................................. 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 Arsenic ..................................................................................................................... not modeled Manganese .............................................................................................................. 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.2 Thallium ................................................................................................................... 0.4 0. 9 0.8 1.6 This waste also contains 57 ppt TCDD equivalents. This concentration exceeds the background level in soils (8 ppt) and the soil ingestion HBL of 45 ppt 59 . We were not able to compare this concentration with a screening level from the Air Characteristics Study because the study did not establish levels for TCDD. While we did not conduct a risk assessment of the detected TCDD TEQ, the presence of TCDD equivalents in the wastes is an additional factor that supports a listing determination, particularly in light of the fact that the management practices reported by the facility were varied and, in many cases, would constitute releases to the circulating environment with a greater potential for a variety of exposure pathways than would occur from a well managed landfill. The proposed listing address all nonwastewaters that are not covered by the mineral processing waste exemption, and is not limited to non exempt wastewater treatment solids. The listing therefore would cover non exempt nonwastewaters from the removal of vanadium wastes from the product titanium tetrachloride stream that are currently returned to the reaction area and ultimately commingled with the exempt reactor solids or ferric chloride (these solids were part of the Iron Rich sample collected by EPA to support this listing determination). Similarly, at the Delaware facility, solids that collect in the ferric chloride product storage tanks and impoundments would be covered by the listing as these solids are ineligible for the mineral processing exemption (because they are generated after the initiation of chemical manufacturing and/ or ancillary operations), they are comparable to the ferric chloride solids that are commingled in the Iron Rich, and they are derived to some degree from nonexempt vanadium materials. The proposed listing, therefore, reads:

K178 Non wastewaters from the production of titanium dioxide by the chlorideilmenite process. (T) [This listing does not apply to chloride process waste solids from titanium tetrachloride production exempt under section 261.4( b)( 7)]

We are also proposing to add manganese and thallium to Appendix VII to Part 261, which designates the hazardous constituents for which K178 would be listed. In addition, we are proposing to add manganese to the list of hazardous constituents in Appendix VIII to Part 261. We believe the available studies clearly show that manganese has toxic effects on humans and other life forms. 60 (11) HCl from reaction scrubber, chloride ilmenite process. All three chloride ilmenite facilities reported generating HCl from scrubbing reactor off gasses. These wastes are stored in covered tanks with vent scrubbers and are re used on site, predominantly as pH control in wastewater treatment systems. We assessed this waste as part of the following category, `` Commingled wastewaters from chloride ilmenite process''. (12) Commingled wastewaters from the chloride ilmenite process.

How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed?

All three chloride ilmenite facilities commingle their wastewaters and treat them on site. The Delaware facility utilizes a tank based system, with final NPDES discharge through an unlined cooling pond to the adjacent river. Both the Tennessee and Mississippi facilities utilized surface impoundment based wastewater treatment systems. These wastewaters are not Bevill exempt (but convey exempt solids into the wastewater treatment system where those solids are removed to form sludges that are comprised of exempt solids and non exempt solids, depending on the specific piping of the plants).

VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55764 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 61 Draft RCRA Facility Investigation Report; DuPont DeLisle, NS. December 7, 1999. What Management Scenarios Were Assessed?

We modeled the surface impoundment scenarios at both the Tennessee and Mississippi sites. (We assumed any releases from the unlined cooling pond at the Delaware facility would be intercepted by the river, and would be comparable in concentration, but much less volume than the actual NPDES discharge point.) At the Tennessee site, we assessed the potential releases from the impoundment system to the adjacent river. We do not believe any drinking water wells could possibly be impacted by these impoundments given their placement on the river banks and within the facility property. We sampled at this facility at the headworks to the impoundment train. We assessed the Mississippi facility's impact on both surface water and potential drinking water wells. The RFI 61 for this site indicates that the local groundwater flow is generally toward the south and east. It is unclear what the patterns are off site and how these patterns might change seasonally, but the groundwater elevation maps included in the RFI indicated that the direction of groundwater flow does vary seasonally and that a shift to a more westerly direction may occur under some conditions. Information from the U. S. Geological Survey's Ground water Site Inventory, available in the docket for today's proposal, shows numerous drinking water wells in the vicinity of the plant, both to the east and southwest. The facility also reported wells on their property which they believe are cross gradient and, in some cases, unused. We chose to model the groundwater scenario because of potential impacts on these known wells. We also assessed the potential impact of the Mississippi facility's surface impoundments on surface water because the facility is bounded to the south by the Bay of St. Louis.

We did not conduct sampling and analysis at the Mississippi facility. Our risk assessment inputs for this facility used the combined analytical data set for the Delaware and Tennessee facilities, which are sister plants of the Mississippi plant. We used the physical parameters for the Mississippi site to describe wastewater flows, surface impoundment sizes, and distances to potential receptors for this modeling.

How Was This Waste Category Characterized?

The analytical results for the constituents found to be present in the wastewaters at levels exceeding HBLs and/ or AWQC are presented below in Table III± 58.

TABLE III± 58.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF COMMINGLED WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE ILMENITE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE Constituent of concern Detected levels in Delaware sample (mg/ L) Detected levels in Tennessee sample (mg/ L) HBL (mg/ L) AWQCÐ Aquatic life (mg/ L)

Aluminum ......................................................................................................... 0.65 3.1 16 0.087 Copper ............................................................................................................. 0.03 0.007 1.3 0.0031 Lead ................................................................................................................. <0.003 0.005B 0.015 0.0025 Manganese ...................................................................................................... 3.3 3.34 0.73 N/ A Nickel ............................................................................................................... 0.013 0.020 0.3 0.052 Thallium ........................................................................................................... <0.005 0.013 0. 001 N/ A Vanadium ......................................................................................................... 0.018 0.63 0.14 N/ A B: also detected in blank N/ A: not available How Was the Groundwater to Surface Water Risk Assessment Established?

The Tennessee facility is bounded to the west by a river. As noted above, the facility indicated that the overall groundwater flow is toward the river. The Mississippi facility is bounded to the south by the Bay of St. Louis, which is fed by 2 rivers to the east and west of the plant. Additional details are available in the docket. We calculated the concentration in the river that would result from discharge of contaminated groundwater by estimating the infiltration rate for the unlined surface impoundment, and (given the area of the impoundment) diluting the resulting leachate volume into the river under various design flow conditions. The results of this screening level analysis (available in Risk Assessment Support to the Inorganic Chemical Industry Listing: Background Information Document'') demonstrate that concentrations of the constituents of concern in the river are likely to be well below the human health and aquatic life AWQC for these constituents. How Was the Groundwater Ingestion Risk Assessment Established?

Based on information presented in the RFI for the Mississippi facility, as well as from the U. S. Geological Survey Ground water Site Inventory, there are groundwater wells to the east and southwest of the plant within 2,000± 5,000 feet. We modeled the potential impact of the unlined surface impoundment train on drinking water wells located within this range. The results are presented below in Table III± 59.

VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55765 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules TABLE III± 59.Ð GROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR COMMINGLED WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE ILMENITE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE Constituent of concern Hazard quotient 90th % adult 90th % child 95th % adult 95th % child Manganese ...................................................................................................... 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 0.0007 Thallium ........................................................................................................... 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.009 Vanadium ......................................................................................................... 0.00009 0.0002 0. 0003 0.0006 What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste? We propose not to list commingled wastewaters from the production of titanium dioxide via the chlorideilmenite process. The results of our risk assessment demonstrate that this waste category poses no risks that warrant listing as hazardous waste. The concentrations of the constituents of concern at the modeled exposure points are well below an HQ of one. (13) Additive vent filter solids from the chloride ilmenite process. One facility reported production of vent filter solids from additive handling. This material is placed in an off site industrial D landfill. Small amounts of this waste are generated (< 1 MT). This material is not Bevill exempt. Handling of this additive is an ancillary activity. All wastes from ancillary activities are not uniquely associated with extraction/ beneficiation and processing of ores and minerals (see 45 FR 76619, November 19, 1980, and 63 FR 28590, May 26, 1998). Information from the facility indicates that a constituent of concern in this material is aluminum. The drinking water HBL for aluminum is higher than the solubility limit in ground water and, therefore, contamination of ground water is not likely to pose a significant risk to human health. Based on this fact, and the very small volume generated by one facility, we propose not to list this material as a hazardous waste. (14) Vanadium waste from the chloride ilmenite and chloride process. Vanadium containing material is generated from the production of titanium dioxide via the chloride and the chloride ilmenite processes. This is not an exempt mineral processing waste because it is not a solid (see also 63 FR 28602). This waste is generally returned to the reaction area where titanium tetrachloride is recovered and the remainder of the vanadium waste is incorporated into the mass of the unreacted coke and ore solids (i. e., the exempt solids) and/ or the waste acid. There is no potential for exposure prior to mixing with the exempt waste or waste acid. We assessed the mixtures of exempt and non exempt wastes as discussed above in III. D. 14. e( 8) and (10). Specifically, we assessed the wastewater treatment solids at the Maryland facility, the Iron Rich material at the Delaware facility, and the waste acid. (15) Off specification titanium dioxide product. How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How is it Managed?

Two facilities reported generating this waste, although we believe that all titanium dioxide manufacturers may generate this waste at some time. The two reporting facilities both describe off site Subtitle D landfills that accept both municipal and industrial wastes as the final management practice for this waste. As noted in the September 1, 1989 Bevill rulemaking, offspecification commercial product wastes are non exempt solid wastes.

What Management Scenarios Were Assessed?

We modeled the off site municipal D landfill scenario using the regional locations of the reported landfills.

How Was This Waste Category Characterized?

We collected one sample of this waste and conducted totals, TCLP, and SPLP analyses. The analytical results for the one constituent found to be present in the waste TCLP sample at a level exceeding its HBL are presented below in Table III± 60 (no constituent exceeded HBLs in the SPLP).

TABLE III± 60.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF OFF SPECIFICATION TITANIUM DIOXIDE PRODUCT Constituent of concern Detected levels in sample DPN± SO± 02 (mg/ L) HBL (mg/ L) Total TCLP Lead ............................................................................................................................................. 0.6 1 0.06 0.015 1 Results are less than the typical laboratory reporting limit, but are greater than the calculated instrument detection limits.

How Was the Groundwater Ingestion Risk Assessment Established?

The facilities reported use of landfills in the vicinity of their plant. We used our usual distance to well assumptions for an off site landfill, and assumed hydrogeologic conditions that are representative of the principal soil and aquifer types present regionally (within a 100 mile radius) for the particular landfill sites that were reported for these wastes. The resultant groundwater concentrations were very low and are presented below in Table III± 61.

TABLE III± 61.Ð GROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR OFF SPECIFICATION TITANIUM DIOXIDE Constituent of concern Predicted well concentrations (mg/ L) HBL (mg/ L) 90th% 95th%

Lead ............................................................................................................................................. 2.5E± 08 1.1E± 06 0.015 VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55766 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules The modeled levels of lead were so far below the HBL that we determined it was unnecessary to further assess the risks from lead. Clearly those risks would be well below an HQ of one.

What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste?

We propose not to list offspecification titanium dioxide as a hazardous waste. Our risk analysis shows that this waste does not pose risks that warrant listing. (16) Railcar/ trailer product washout. One facility reported generation of this residual (< 10,000 MT). The washwater, containing titanium dioxide, is placed in a surface impoundment. This waste is not Bevill exempt because it is a liquid and it is associated with the chemical manufacturing part of the process. The water from this pond is subsequently sent to wastewater treatment where it is commingled with all other chloride ilmenite wastewaters (assessed in III. D. 14. e( 12)). The titanium dioxide product that settles to the bottom of this pond is mechanically recovered and returned to the production process. We assessed the potential impact of this impoundment via the SPLP analytical data collected for off specification product (previously discussed in III. D. 14. e( 15)). These data are available in the background document for this sector, and show no constituents of concern. We chose the SPLP to assess this management scenario because there is no potential for contact with municipal landfill leachate. We therefore do not propose to list this waste.

G. What Is the Status of Landfill Leachate From Previously Disposed Wastes?

Leachate derived from the treatment, storage, or disposal of listed hazardous wastes is classified as a hazardous waste by virtue of the `` derived from'' rule in 40 CFR 261.3( c)( 2). The Agency has been clear in the past that hazardous waste listings apply to wastes disposed of prior to the effective date of a listing, even if the landfill ceases disposal of the waste when the waste becomes hazardous. (See 53 FR 31147, August 17, 1988). We also have a wellestablished interpretation that listings apply to leachate derived from the disposal of listed hazardous wastes, including leachate derived from wastes meeting the listing description that were disposed before the effective date of a listing. We are not reopening any of these issues with this proposed rulemaking. Of course, as set out in detail in the August 1988 notice, this does not mean that landfills holding wastes that are listed now as hazardous become subject to Subtitle C regulation. However, previously disposed wastes now meeting a listing description, including residues such as leachate that are derived from such wastes, and that are managed actively do become subject to Subtitle C regulation. See 53 FR at 31149, August 17, 1988. In many, indeed most, circumstances, active management of leachate would be exempt from Subtitle C regulation because the usual pattern of management is discharge either to POTWs via the sewer system, where leachate mixes with domestic sewage and is excluded from RCRA jurisdiction (see RCRA Section 1004( 27) and 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 1)), or to navigable waters, also excluded from RCRA jurisdiction (see RCRA Section 1004( 27) and 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 2)). In addition, management of leachate in wastewater treatment tanks prior to discharge under the CWA is exempt from RCRA regulation (40 CFR 264.1( g)( 6)). If actively managed, landfill leachate and gas condensate derived from the newly listed wastes proposed for listing in today's proposal could be classified as K176, K177, or K178. In such circumstances, we would be concerned about the potential disruption in current leachate management that could occur, and the possibility of redundant regulation. This issue was raised to the Agency in the context of the petroleum refinery waste listings (see 63 FR 42173, August 6, 1998). A commenter expressed concern that, because some of the commenter's non hazardous waste landfills received newly listed petroleum wastes prior to the effective date of the listing decision, the leachate that is collected and managed from these landfills would be classified as hazardous. The commenter argued that this could lead to vastly increased treatment and disposal costs without necessarily any environmental benefit. After examining and seeking comment on this issue, we published a final rule that temporarily defers regulation of landfill leachate and gas condensate derived from certain listed petroleum refining wastes (K169 K172) that were disposed before, but not after, the new listings became effective, provided certain conditions are met. See 64 FR 6806, February 11, 1999. Since then, we have published proposed rules for wastes from the dye and pigment industries (64 FR 40192, July 23, 1999) and the chlorinated aliphatics industry (64 FR 46476, August 25, 1998) that also propose deferrals for similar wastes derived from landfills.

At the time this issue was brought to the Agency's attention in the context of the petroleum refinery waste listings, EPA's Office of Water had recently proposed national effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for wastewater dischargesÐ most notably, leachateÐ from certain types of landfills. See 63 FR 6426, February 6, 1998. In support of this proposal, EPA conducted a study of the volume and chemical composition of wastewaters generated by both subtitle C (hazardous waste) and subtitle D (non hazardous waste) landfills, including treatment technologies and management practices currently in use. Most pertinent to finalizing the temporary deferral for the petroleum refining wastes, EPA did not propose (or subsequently finalize) pretreatment standards for subtitle D landfill wastewaters sent to POTWs because the Agency's information indicated that such standards were not required (see 65 FR 3008, January 19, 2000).

The conditions included in the temporary deferral we published on February 11, 1999 are that the leachate is subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act, and the leachate cannot be stored in surface impoundments after February 13, 2001. See 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 15). We believe that it was appropriate to temporarily defer the application of the new waste codes to such leachate in order to avoid disruption of ongoing leachate management activities while the Agency decides if any further integration is needed of the RCRA and CWA regulations consistent with RCRA Section 1006( b)( 1). We believe that it is still appropriate to defer regulation and avoid leachate management activities, and to permit the Agency to decide whether any further integration of the two programs is needed. As such, we would be concerned about forcing pretreatment of leachate even though pretreatment is neither required by the CWA, nor needed. Therefore, we are proposing to temporarily defer the regulation of landfill leachate and gas condensate derived from the wastes we are proposing for listing in today's rule, with the same conditions as described in 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 15) for petroleum wastes. We seek comment on our proposed decision to extend the temporary deferral to include the wastes proposed for listing in today's notice.

VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55767 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules IV. Proposed Treatment Standards Under RCRA's Land Disposal Restrictions A. What Are EPA's Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)? RCRA requires us to establish treatment standards for all wastes destined for the land disposal. These are the `` land disposal restrictions'' or LDRs. For any hazardous waste identified or listed after November 8, 1984, we must promulgate these LDR treatment standards within six months of the date of identification or final listing (RCRA Section 3004( g)( 4), 42 U. S. C. 6924( g)( 4)). RCRA also requires us to set as these treatment standards ``* * * levels or methods of treatment, if any, which substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste so that short term and long term threats to human health and the environment are minimized. '' (RCRA Section 3004( m)( 1), 42 U. S. C. 6924( m)( 1)). Once a hazardous waste is prohibited from land disposal, the statute provides only two options for legal land disposal: Meet the treatment standard for the waste prior to land disposal, or dispose of the waste in a land disposal unit that satisfies the statutory no migration test. A no migration unit is one from which there will be no migration of hazardous constituents for as long as the waste remains hazardous. RCRA sections 3004 (d), (e), (f), and (g)( 5). Each waste identified for listing as hazardous in this rule will be subject to all the land disposal restrictions on the same day their respective listing becomes effective. We gathered data on waste characteristics and current management practices for wastes proposed to be listed in this action. These data can be found in the administrative record for this rule. An examination of the constituents that are the basis of the proposed listings shows that we have previously developed numerical treatment standards for most of the constituents. We have determined that it is technically feasible and justified to apply existing universal treatment standards (UTS) to the hazardous constituents in the wastes proposed to be listed as K176, K177, and K178 that were found to be present at concentrations exceeding the treatment standards, because the waste compositions are similar to other wastes for which applicable treatment technologies have been demonstrated. Also see LDR Phase II final rule, 59 FR 47982, September 19, 1994, for a further discussion of UTS. A list of the proposed regulated hazardous constituents and the proposed treatment limits can be found in the following preamble sections and in the proposed regulatory Table 268.40Ð Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes. If we make a final decision to list the identified wastes, these constituents and treatment standards would apply. We have provided in the BDAT background document a review of technologies that can be used to meet the proposed numerical concentration limits for K176, K177, and K178, assuming optimized design and operation. Where we are proposing numerical concentration limits, the use of other technologies capable of achieving the proposed treatment standards would be allowed, except for those treatment or reclamation practices constituting land disposal or impermissible dilution (see 40 CFR 268.3).

B. What Are the Treatment Standards for K176 (Baghouse Filters From Production of Antimony Oxide)? The constituents identified to require treatment in this waste are antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. We are proposing to apply the UTS levels to these constituents as the treatment standards. Therefore, the nonwastewaters treatment standard proposed for antimony is 1.15mg/ L TCLP; arsenic is 5.0 mg/ L TCLP; cadmium is 0.11 mg/ L TCLP; lead is 0.75 mg/ L TCLP; and, mercury is 0.025 mg/ L TCLP. In the event that there are wastewater treatment residuals from treatment of K176 (which under the derived from rule would also be considered as K176), the wastewater treatment standards are as follows: Antimony is 1.9 mg/ L; arsenic is 1.4 mg/ L; cadmium is 0.69 mg/ L; lead is 0.69 mg/ L; and, mercury is 0.15 mg/ L. We are requesting data and comment on the stabilization of antimony. Available stabilization data for antimony show effective treatment for wastes with initial antimony concentrations below those found in K176. Therefore, based on the available data, we are uncertain if stabilization will be effective for the antimony in this waste.

C. What Standards Are the Treatment Standards for K177 (Slag From the Production of Antimony Oxide That is Disposed of or Speculatively Accumulated)? The constituents identified to require treatment in this waste are antimony, arsenic, and lead. We are proposing to apply the UTS levels to these constituents as the treatment standards. Therefore, the nonwastewater treatment standard for antimony is 1.15 mg/ L TCLP, for arsenic is 5.0 mg/ L TCLP, and for lead is 0.75 mg/ L TCLP. In the event that there are wastewater treatment residuals from treatment of K177 (which under the derived from rule also would be considered K177), the wastewater treatment standard for antimony is 1.9 mg/ L, for arsenic is 1.4 mg/ L, and for lead is 0.69 mg/ L. We are requesting data and comment on the stabilization of antimony. Available stabilization data for antimony show effective treatment for wastes with initial antimony concentrations below those found in K177. Therefore, based on the available data, we are uncertain if stabilization will be effective for the antimony in this waste.

D. What Are the Treatment Standards for K178 (Nonwastewaters From the Production of Titanium Dioxide by the Chloride Ilmenite Process)? The constituents of concern in this waste are the chlorinated congeners of dibenzo p dioxin and dibenzofuran, thallium and manganese. We are proposing to apply the UTS levels to the chlorinated congeners of dibenzo pdioxin and dibenzofuran, and thallium, as indicated in Table V± 1. In addition we are also proposing the option of complying with the technology standard of combustion (CMBST) for the chlorinated dibenzo p dioxin and dibenzofuran (dioxins and furans) constituents present in K178. We note at the outset that we typically promulgate numerical performance standards to allow facilities maximum flexibility in determining for themselves how best to achieve compliance with the LDR treatment standards. By promulgating combustion as an alternative compliance option, we are not disturbing the degree of flexibility afforded to facilities; rather, we are enhancing it. However, when we specify a treatment technology like CMBST as the treatment standard, the analytical elements of compliance change. Typically, with specified technologies, no testing and analysis of treatment residuals is required because we are confident that use of the specified technology will reduce the level of target organic constituents to levels that minimize threats to human health and the environment. For K178, the regulated organic constituents of concern are dioxin/ furan congeners. If combustion in well designed and operated units is used to treat K178, the dioxin/ furan congeners in the K178 should be substantially destroyed. By VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55768 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules prescribing CMBST, we ensure that the units treating K178 will be units subject to the standards in Part 264 Subpart O or Part 266 Subpart H, or from interim status incinerators which have made a specific demonstration that they operate in a manner equivalent to a Part 264 or Part 266 combustion unit. The practical effect of this change will be to limit the type of facilities that can combust K178 to well regulated RCRA units (or, after the current transition period, Clean Air Act permitted units subject to MACT standards). This will ensure that combustion is done in a closelyregulated facility and in a manner that provides protection for human health and the environment. Furthermore, by restricting combustion of K178 to these units, combustion will only occur in units subject to the recently upgraded dioxin/ furan emission standards of the MACT Hazardous Waste Combustion Rule as well as standards for other hazardous air pollutants, such as metals (64 FR 52828, September 30, 1999). K178 does have metal constituents of concern, which would not be treated by the combustion process and that would remain in the combustion treatment residuals (e. g., ash and scrubber water). We therefore are retaining metal treatment standards for all circumstances, i. e., whether or not the treatment used by a facility involves combustion. When combustion is used to treat the organics to achieve LDR compliance, facilities will still need to conduct compliance testing and analysis for all regulated metal constituents in the combustion treatment residuals prior to disposal. This approach is patterned after EPA's promulgation of a similar alternative treatment standard for F024 (wastes from production of chlorinated aliphatics) and also for F032 (wastes from wood preserving processes). See 55 FR 22580± 81, June 1, 1990. See also 62 FR 26000± 3, May 12, 1997. For both solid and wastewater treatment residuals, we are proposing use of the Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) for all constituents of concern except manganese. Universal treatment standards have not been developed for manganese, although we are proposing standards below. We did not study this constituent in the development of F039 treatment standards in 1990 or UTS in 1994. Furthermore, we lack studies demonstrating treatment effectiveness for highly concentrated manganese nonwastewaters, such as those containing manganese at levels such as those found in K178. We did, however, identify treatability data for less concentrated manganese waste in our treatability database. These data show that solidification offers promising results in reducing the mobility of manganese, at least in less concentrated manganese waste. Such treatment yielded concentrations of 0.002, 0.003, and 0.46 mg/ L TCLP. Under the LDR program, we typically apply a variability factor of 2.8 to the treated waste data, to account for variations arising from mechanical limitations in the treatment equipment. Therefore we calculated potential treatment standards based on solidification treatment from our treatability database as 0.006, 0.008, and 1.29 mg/ L TCLP. We are unsure whether these treatment standards would be achievable in a waste with the significantly higher concentrations of manganese found in K178. Therefore, we are not proposing treatment standards based on solidification. Rather, to propose a more achievable standard, we based it on a technology which results in higher post treatment manganese levels. High temperature metals recovery (which vitrifies the manganese in the slag) resulted in a treated manganese concentration of 1.3 mg/ L TCLP. Using this datum and our typical variability factor of 2.8, we calculated a proposed manganese treatment standard of 3.6 mg/ L TCLP. We request comment and data on this proposed treatment standard, and we request anyone who has an interest in the treatment standard for manganese to comment to that effect. We may use the list of commenters on this topic as the only individuals notified of potential changes to this proposed treatment standard, so it is important for you to comment if you are in any way interested. Because it is possible that commenters may submit data showing that this treatment option is inappropriate for K178, we request comment on the option of setting a treatment standard for manganese that is identical to the current UTS level for thallium, the other metal found in proposed K178. The thallium treatment level of 0.20 mg/ L TCLP is based on stabilization. We also request any information regarding the similarity of manganese nonwastewater treatment to the treatment of other RCRA regulated metals that now appear in the UTS, both from a structural or physico chemical perspective as well as from a treatment performance perspective. We have some treatment data for manganese in wastewater matrices derived from wastes other than K178 in our treatability database. It has been difficult to determine whether these treatment data are relevant because we have no examples of wastewaters derived from K178. We are therefore unsure if the wastes in our database are more or less concentrated than actual K178 wastewaters. To account for this uncertainty, we selected treatment data representing relatively high initial concentrations (up to 1000 mg/ L), but also representing full scale operation and satisfactory treatment (at least 90 percent reduction in concentration). We found that sedimentation technology, the most effective treatment method in our database, resulted in a final effluent concentration of 6.1 mg/ L and chemical precipitation technology resulted in final effluent concentrations of 2.4 and 4.8 mg/ L (both operated at full scale and resulted in greater than 90 percent reduction). We have selected, to be conservative, the highest concentration (6.1 mg/ L) to calculate a K178 wastewater standard. We applied a variability factor of 2.8 to obtain a proposed K178 LDR treatment standard of 17.1mg/ L. Again, we request comments on and data relevant to this proposed treatment standard for wastewater forms of K178, both from those who support the standard and those who believe the standard is not achievable. We also request any information regarding the similarity of manganese wastewater treatment to the treatment of other RCRA regulated metals that now appear in the UTS, both from a structural or physico chemical perspective as well as from a treatment performance perspective. Only commenters on this subject may be notified of future changes we may make based on newly submitted data. Because we typically include the same treatment standards for new listings into those for F039 (multisource leachate) to maintain equivalence within the LDR regulatory structure, we are also proposing to add the manganese treatment standard to the F039 section of the 268.40 table. The F039 waste code applies to hazardous waste landfill leachates in lieu of the original waste codes when multiple waste codes would otherwise apply. F039 wastes are subject to numerical treatment standards equivalent to UTS. We are proposing this addition to the constituents regulated by F039 to maintain the implementation benefits of having one waste code for multisource leachate. We are also proposing to add manganese to the UTS Table at 40 CFR 268.48. Manganese represents significant risk to human health and the environment, as shown in the risk assessment accompanying this rule. Its presence in other hazardous wastes VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55769 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules should be mitigated by effective treatment to avoid similar risks after land disposal. Furthermore, when manganese is added to the UTS list, all characteristic wastes that have this constituent as an underlying hazardous constituent above the UTS levels will require treatment of manganese before land disposal. We solicit comments on these proposed conforming changes and especially on the impacts that they may have on other wastes beyond just K178. We request comment on the full set of proposed standards for K178 listed in the following table.

TABLE IV± 1.Ð TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K178 Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters Common name CAS 1 No. Concentration in mg/ L 2 , or technology code 3 Concentration in mg/ kg4 unless noted as `` mg/ L TCLP'', or technology code 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 Heptachlorodibenzo p dioxin ................................. 35822± 39± 4 0.000035 or CMBST 5 .............. 0.0025 or CMBST 5 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 Heptachlorodibenzofuran ....................................... 67562± 39± 4 0.000035 or CMBST 5 .............. 0.0025 or CMBST 5 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 Heptachlorodibenzofuran ....................................... 55673± 89± 7 0.000035 or CMBST 5 .............. 0.0025 or CMBST 5 HxCDDs (All Hexachlorodibenzo p dioxins) ............................... 34465± 46± 8 0.000063 or CMBST 5 .............. 0.001 or CMBST 5 HxCDFs (All Hexachlorodibenzofurans) ..................................... 55684± 94± 1 0.000063 or CMBST 5 .............. 0.001 or CMBST 5 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 Octachlorodibenzo p dioxin (OCDD) .................. 3268± 87± 9 0.000063 or CMBST 5 .............. 0.005 or CMBST 5 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 Octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF) ........................ 39001± 02± 0 0.000063 or CMBST 5 .............. 0.005 or CMBST 5 PeCDDs (All Pentachlorodibenzo p dioxins) .............................. 36088± 22± 9 0.000063 or CMBST 5 .............. 0.001 or CMBST 5 PeCDFs (All Pentachlorodibenzofurans) .................................... 30402± 15± 4 0.000035 or CMBST 5 .............. 0.001 or CMBST 5 TCDDs (All tetrachlorodi benzo p dioxins) ................................. 41903± 57± 5 0.000063 or CMBST 5 .............. 0.001 or CMBST 5 TCDFs (All tetrachlorodibenzofurans) ......................................... 55722± 27± 5 0.000063 or CMBST 5 .............. 0.001 or CMBST 5 Manganese ................................................................................. 7439± 96± 5 17.1 .......................................... 3.6 mg/ L TCLP Thallium ....................................................................................... 7440± 28± 0 1.4 ............................................ 0.20 mg/ L TCLP 1 CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/ or regulated constituents are described as a combination of a chemical with its salts and/ or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only. 2 Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/ L and are based on analysis of composite samples. 3 All treatment standards expressed as a Technology Code or combination of Technology Codes are explained in detail in 40 CFR 268. 42 Table 1 Technology Codes and Descriptions of Technology Based Standards. 4 Except for Metals (EP or TCLP) and Cyanides (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards expressed as a concentration were established, in part, based upon incineration in units operated in accordance with the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart O or 40 CFR part 265, subpart O, or based upon combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technical requirements A facility may comply with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.40( d). All concentration standards for nonwastewaters are based on analysis of grab samples. 5 For these wastes, the definition of CMBST is limited to: (1) combustion units operating under 40 CFR 266, (2) combustion units permitted under 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart O, or (3) combustion units operating under 40 CFR 265, Subpart O, which have obtained a determination of equivalent treatment under 268.42( b).

What Other LDR Provisions Are Proposed to Apply? 1. Debris. We propose to apply the regulations at 40 CFR 268.45 to hazardous debris contaminated with K176, K177 or K178. Debris contaminated with these wastes would have to be treated prior to land disposal, using specific technologies from one or more of the following families of debris treatment technologies: extraction, destruction, or immobilization. Hazardous debris contaminated with a listed waste that is treated by an immobilization technology specified in 40 CFR 268.45 Table 1 is a hazardous waste and must be managed in a hazardous waste facility. Residuals generated from the treatment of debris contaminated with K176, K177, or K178 would remain subject to the treatment standards proposed today. See 57 FR 37277, August 18, 1992, for additional information on the applicability, scope, and content of the hazardous debris provisions. 2. Soil. In addition, we propose to apply the regulations at 40 CFR 268.49 to hazardous soil contaminated with K176, K177, or K178. Soil contaminated with these wastes would have to be treated prior to land disposal, meeting either alternative treatment standards (i. e., 10 times UTS or 90 percent reduction in initial constituent concentrations) or the standards at 40 CFR 268.40 being proposed today. Nonsoil residuals generated from the treatment of soil contaminated with K176, K177, or K178 would remain subject to the treatment standards proposed today. See 63 FR 28602, May 26, 1998, for additional information on the applicability, scope, and content of the alternative soil treatment standard provisions. 3. Underground Injection Wells that can be found in the administrative record for this rule. Finally, because land disposal also includes placement in injection wells (40 CFR 268.2( c)) application of the land disposal restrictions to K176, K177, and K178 requires the modification of injection well requirements found in 40 CFR 148. We propose that K176, K177, and K178 be prohibited from underground injection. Therefore, these wastes could not be underground injected unless they have been treated in compliance with the LDR treatment standards being proposed today, or if they are disposed in a deep injection well that has been granted a no migration petition for those wastes.

E. Is There Treatment Capacity for the Proposed Wastes?

1. What Is a Capacity Determination? EPA must determine whether adequate alternative treatment capacity exists nationally to manage the wastes subject to LDR treatment standards. RCRA section 3004 (h)( 2). Thus, LDRs are effective when the new listings are effective (typically 6 months after the new listings are published in the Federal Register), unless EPA grants a national capacity variance from the otherwise applicable date and establishes a different date (not to exceed two years beyond the statutory deadline) based on ``* * * the earliest date on which adequate alternative treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity which protects human health and the environment will be available'' (RCRA section 3004( h)( 2), 42 U. S. C. 6924( h)( 2)). Our capacity analysis methodology focuses on the amount of waste VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55770 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules currently disposed on the land, which will require alternative or additional treatment as a result of the LDRs. The quantity of wastes that is not disposed on the land, such as discharges regulated under NPDES, discharges to a POTW, or treatment in a RCRA exempt tank, is not included in the quantities requiring additional treatment as a result of the LDRs. Also, land disposed wastes that do not require alternative or additional treatment are excluded from the required capacity estimates (i. e., those that currently are treated to meet the LDR treatment standards). Landdisposed wastes requiring alternative or additional treatment or recovery capacity that is available on site or within the same company also are excluded from the required commercial capacity estimates. The resulting estimates of required commercial capacity then are compared to estimates of available commercial capacity. If adequate commercial capacity exists, the waste is restricted from further land disposal. If protective alternative capacity does not exist, EPA has the authority to grant a national capacity variance. In making the estimates described above, the volume of waste requiring treatment depends on the current waste management practices employed by the waste generators before this proposed regulation is promulgated and becomes effective. Data on waste management practices for these wastes were collected during the development of this proposed rule. However, we realize that as the regulatory process proceeds, generators of these wastes may decide to minimize or recycle their wastes or otherwise alter their management practices. Thus, we will monitor changes and update data on current management practices as these changes will affect the volume of wastes ultimately requiring commercial treatment or recovery capacity. The commercial hazardous waste treatment industry may change rapidly. For example, national commercial treatment capacity changes as new facilities come on line or old facilities go off line, and as new units and new technologies are added at existing facilities. The available capacity at commercial facilities also changes as facilities change their commercial status (e. g., changing from a fully commercial to a limited commercial or `` captive''Ð company ownedÐ facility). Thus, we also continue to update and monitor changes in available commercial treatment capacity. For wastes required to meet today's proposed treatment standards, we request data on the annual generation volumes and characteristics of wastes affected by this proposed rule, including proposed hazardous wastes K176, K177, and K178 in wastewater and nonwastewater forms. We also request data on soil or debris contaminated with these wastes, residuals generated from the treatment or recycling of these wastes, and the current and planned management practices for the wastes, waste mixtures, and treatment residuals. For available capacity to meet the LDR requirements, we request data on the current treatment or recovery capacity capable of treating these wastes, facility and unit permit status related to treatment of the proposed wastes, and any plans that facilities may expand or reduce existing capacity or construct new capacity. In addition, we request information on the time and necessary procedures required for permit modification for generators or commercial treatment or disposal facilities to manage the wastes, required changes for operating practices due to the proposed listings or proposed additional constituent to be regulated in the wastes, and any waste minimization activities associated with the wastes. Of particular interest to us are chemical and physical constraints of treatment technologies for these wastes and any problems for disposing of these wastes. Also of interest are any analytical difficulties associated with identifying and monitoring the regulated constituents in these wastes.

F. What are the Capacity Analysis Results?

This preamble only provides a summary of the capacity analysis performed to support this proposed regulation. For additional and more detailed information, please refer to the `` Background Document for Capacity Analysis for Land Disposal Restrictions: Inorganic Chemical Production Wastes (Proposed Rule), '' August 2000 (i. e., the Capacity Background Document). For this capacity analysis, we examined data on waste characteristics and management practices gathered for the inorganic chemical hazardous waste listing determinations. We also examined data on available treatment or recovery capacity for these wastes. The sources for these data are the RCRA Section 3007 Survey distributed in the spring of 1999, record sampling and site visits (see the docket for today's rule for more information on these survey instruments and facility activities), the available treatment capacity data submission that was collected in the mid 1990's, and the 1997 Biennial Report. For K176 and K177 wastes, the information from the surveys, sampling, and site visits indicates that there is no quantity of the wastewater form of K176 or K177 that is expected to be generated and therefore, there is no quantity of the wastewater form of K176 or K177 that will require alternative commercial treatment. These wastes are typically present in a nonwastewater form. Based on the RCRA § 3007 Survey information presented in the Capacity Background Document, required alternative treatment capacity for K176 nonwastewaters is estimated to be eight tons per year. Required alternative treatment capacity for K177 nonwastewaters is estimated to be 22 tons per year. As described in the section of proposed LDR treatment standards above, we are proposing that numerical treatment standards be applied to K176 and K177 nonwastewaters. We anticipate that commercially available stabilization, as well as other technologies, can be used in meeting these treatment standards. We estimate that the commercially available stabilization capacity is at least eight million tons per year based on the 1995 Biennial Report. Thus we expect there is sufficient capacity to treat the proposed K176 and K177 hazardous wastes that would require treatment. Therefore, we are proposing not to grant a national capacity variance for K176 or K177 wastewaters or nonwastewaters. For K178 waste (chloride ilmenite nonexempt nonwastewaters from the production of titanium dioxide), our data indicate that the waste is typically generated as a nonwastewater. We did not identify any wastewater forms of these wastes and therefore do not anticipate that alternative management for wastewaters is required. We found that the wastes are currently land disposed. We estimated that approximately 7,300 tons per year (derived from public information since data on amounts of treatment solids are confidential as reported in § 3007 Survey) may require alternative treatment. In our assessment, we assumed that facilities can segregate wastestreams and separately manage the newly proposed hazardous waste. Although the generation quantity (and therefore, the quantity requiring treatment) may be higher due to the derived from rule, we expect that available treatment capacity still exists. As discussed earlier for K178 treatment standards, we are proposing that numerical treatment standards be applied to K178 wastes. We anticipate that commercially available incineration, followed by stabilization if VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55771 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62 A unretrofitted impoundment is one not satisfying the minimum technology requirements (MTR) specified in sections 3004( o) and 3005( j)( 11). 63 See RCRA § 3004( m)( 1) `` Simultaneously with the promulgation of regulations under subsection (d), (e), (f), or (g) prohibiting one or more methods of land disposal of a particular hazardous waste * * * promulgate regulations specifying those levels or methods of treatment * * *'' necessary, or high temperature metals recovery if applicable, can be used to meet these treatment standards. We also propose the technology standard of combustion (CMBST) as an alternative compliance option for hazardous organic constituents in the K178 wastes. The units treating the waste by using CMBST will be subject to certain standards, and facilities will need to meet treatment standards for all regulated metal constituents prior to disposal, as discussed in the earlier section on K178 treatment standards. We assume that facilities would achieve treatment standards using incineration, stabilization, or both. The quantity of commercially available combustion capacity for sludge and solid is a minimum of 300,000 tons per year and the quantity of commercially available stabilization capacity is at least eight million tons per year based on 1995 Biennial Report. We have identified that there exist facilities managing K178 waste in surface impoundments (i. e., in wastewater treatment systems that contain land based units). If the waste is managed in unretrofitted impoundments, 62 it would thus be land disposed in a prohibited manner. These impoundments can be retrofitted, closed or replaced with tank systems. If the impoundment continues to be used to manage K178 waste, the unit will be subject to Subtitle C requirements. In addition, any hazardous wastes managed in the affected impoundment after the effective date of today's rule are subject to land disposal prohibitions. 63 However, facilities may continue to manage newly listed K178 in surface impoundments, provided they are in compliance with the appropriate standards for impoundments (40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 subpart K) and the special rules regarding surface impoundments (40 CFR 268.14). EPA notes that those provisions require basic groundwater monitoring (40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 Subpart F), management, and recordkeeping, but (in keeping with RCRA section 3005( j)( 6)( A)) are afforded up to 48 months to retrofit to meet minimum technological requirements. Based on the foregoing, we expect that sufficient capacity to treat the proposed K178 hazardous wastes that would require treatment. Therefore, we are proposing not to grant a capacity variance for wastewater and nonwastewater forms of K178. With respect to the revisions to the F039 and UTS lists, as discussed earlier in the section on K178 treatment standards, we are proposing to add manganese to the list of regulated constituents in F039 (§ 268.40) and the UTS table (§ 268.48). We have estimated what portion of the F039 or characteristic wastes (which require treatment of underlying hazardous constituents to UTS levels) may be required to meet these new treatment standards. We request comments on the estimates, the appropriate means of treatment (if necessary), and the sufficiency of available treatment capacity for the affected wastes by the addition of manganese to the F039 and UTS lists. When changing the treatment requirements for wastes already subject to LDR (including F039 and characteristic wastes), EPA no longer has authority to use RCRA § 3004( h)( 2) to grant a capacity variance to these wastes. However, EPA is guided by the overall objective of section 3004( h), namely that treatment standards which best accomplish the goal of RCRA § 3004( m) (to minimize threats posed by land disposal) should take effect as soon as possible, consistent with availability of treatment capacity. We expect that only a limited quantity of hazardous waste leachate may be generated from the disposal of newlylisted K176, K177, and K178 wastes (due to the small number of generators) and added to the generation of leachates from other multiple restricted hazardous wastes already subject to LDR. For the amount of characteristic wastes or leachates generated from those previously regulated hazardous wastes that would be subject only to the new treatment standards for manganese, we evaluated the universe of wastes that might be impacted by revisions to the lists of regulated constituents for F039 and UTS based on limited information. Based on 1997 Biennial Report data and some assumptions of waste compositions and their potential for land disposal, we were able to estimate the potential need for additional treatment. For example, we estimated an upper bound of 70,000 tons per year of nonwastewaters mixed with other waste codes, the F039 leachate from which would be potentially impacted by the revision to the F039 treatment standards. In a similar fashion, we estimated that no more than 520,000 tons per year of characteristic nonwastewaters potentially might be affected by the proposed changes (i. e., the addition of manganese to the F039 and UTS lists). These upper bound estimates are most likely very overstated since only a portion of each estimated waste volume may contain manganese at concentrations above the proposed level specified in the UTS table and the F039 list. The estimates assume that manganese is present at levels above the proposed treatment standards in all of these wastes and require alternative treatment, when it is likely that this may be true in only a small sets of the cases. Furthermore, EPA does not anticipate that waste volumes subject to treatment for F039 or characteristic wastes would significantly increase because waste generators already are required to comply with the treatment requirements for other metals that may be present in the wastes. The volumes of wastes for which additional treatment is needed solely due to the addition of manganese to the F039 and UTS lists are therefore expected to be very small. See the Capacity Background Document for detailed analysis. However, even though our volume estimates are highly conservative and overstated, we find that there still would be no shortage of treatment capacity. Based on data submittals in the mid 1990's and the 1997 Biennial Report, EPA has estimated that approximately 37 million tons per year of commercial wastewater treatment capacity are available, and well over one million tons per year of liquid, sludge, and solid commercial combustion capacity are available. Also, as discussed earlier in this section, there exist several million tons of available stabilization capacity. These are well above the quantities of F039 or characteristic wastes potentially requiring treatment for manganese even under the conservative screening assumptions described above. Therefore, we are proposing a decision not to delay the effective date for adding manganese to the lists of constituents for F039 and UTS. We request comment on its proposed decision not to delay the effective date for adding manganese to the lists of constituents for F039 and UTS. We request data on the annual generation volumes and characteristics of wastes potentially affected by the proposed changes to UTS and F039 in wastewater and nonwastewater forms (if any), and the current and planned management practices for the wastes, waste mixtures, and treatment residuals. We also request data on the current treatment or recovery capacity capable of treating the affected wastes.

VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55772 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules Further, for soil and debris contaminated with the newly listed wastes (K176, K177, and K178), we believe that the vast majority of contaminated soil and debris contaminated with these wastes will be managed on site and therefore will not require substantial commercial treatment capacity. Therefore, we are not proposing to grant a national capacity variance for hazardous soil and debris contaminated with these wastes covered under this proposal. Based on the 1999 RCRA § 3007 Survey followed by record sampling and site visits, there are no data showing the newly listed wastes managed by underground injection wells. Also, based on the 1999 RCRA § 3007 Survey followed by record sampling and site visits, there are no data showing mixed radioactive wastes associated with the proposed listings. EPA is proposing to not grant a national capacity variance for underground injected wastes, mixed radioactive wastes, or soil and debris contaminated with these mixed radioactive wastes, if such wastes are generated. Therefore, we propose that LDR treatment standards for the affected wastes covered under today's rule thus become effective when the listing determinations become effectiveÐ the earliest possible date (see RCRA section 3004( h)( 1)Ð land disposal prohibitions must take effect immediately when there is sufficient protective treatment capacity for the waste available). However, we may need to revise capacity analyses or capacity variance decisions if final listing determinations are changed or if we receive data and information to warrant any revision. Finally, we request comments on the estimated quantities requiring alternative treatment and information on characteristics of the affected wastes, management practices for these wastes, and available treatment, recovery or disposal capacity for the wastes. We also request comments concerning alternative management for any of these wastes managed in surface impoundments, including new piping or tank systems, and the length of time required for such activities. In addition, we solicit comments on our decision not to grant a national capacity variance or delay the effective date for any of the affected wastes. We will consider all available data and information provided during the public comment period and revise our capacity analysis accordingly in making the final capacity determinations. Please note, the ultimate volumes of wastes estimated to require alternative or additional commercial treatment may change if the final listing determinations change. Should this occur, we will revise the capacity analysis accordingly.

V. Compliance Dates We seek comment on the proposed decisions in this section.

A. Notification Under the RCRA Section 3010 any person generating, transporting, or managing a hazardous waste must notify EPA (or an authorized state) of its activities. Section 3010( a) allows us to waive, under certain circumstances, the notification requirement under Section 3010 of RCRA. If these hazardous waste listings are promulgated, we propose to waive the notification requirement as unnecessary for persons already identified within the hazardous waste management universe (i. e., persons who have an EPA identification number under 40 CFR 262.12). We do not propose to waive the notification requirement for waste handlers who have neither notified us that they may manage hazardous wastes nor received an EPA identification number. Such individuals will have to provide notification under RCRA Section 3010.

B. Interim Status and Permitted Facilities Because HSWA requirements are applicable in authorized states at the same time as in unauthorized states, we will regulate the newly identified wastes listed under HSWA until states are authorized to regulate these wastes. Thus, once this regulation becomes effective as a final rule, we will apply Federal regulations to these wastes and to their management in both authorized and unauthorized states.

VI. State Authority A. Applicability of Rule in Authorized States Under Section 3006 of RCRA, we may authorize qualified states to administer and enforce the RCRA program within the state. (See 40 CFR Part 271 for the standards and requirements for authorization.) Following authorization, we retain enforcement authority under Sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized states have primary enforcement responsibility. Before the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) amended RCRA, a state with final authorization administered its hazardous waste program entirely in lieu of the Federal program in that state. The Federal requirements no longer applied in the authorized state, and we could not issue permits for any facilities located in the state with permitting authorization. When new, more stringent Federal requirements were promulgated or enacted, the state was obligated to enact equivalent authority within specified time frames. New Federal requirements did not take effect in an authorized state until the state adopted the requirements as state law. By contrast, under Section 3006( g) of RCRA, 42 U. S. C. 6926( g), new requirements and prohibitions imposed by the HSWA (including the hazardous waste listings in this proposal) take effect in authorized states at the same time that they take effect in nonauthorized states. EPA is directed to implement those requirements and prohibitions in authorized states, including the issuance of permits, until the state is granted authorization to do so. While states must still adopt HSWArelated provisions as state law to retain final authorization, the Federal HSWA requirements apply in authorized states in the interim.

B. Effect on State Authorizations Because this proposal (with the exception of the actions proposed under CERCLA authority) will be promulgated pursuant to the HSWA, a state submitting a program modification is able to apply to receive either interim or final authorization under Section 3006( g)( 2) or 3006( b), respectively, on the basis of requirements that are substantially equivalent or equivalent to EPA's requirements. The procedures and schedule for state program modifications under 3006( b) are described in 40 CFR 271.21. It should be noted that all HSWA interim authorizations are currently scheduled to expire on January 1, 2003 (see 57 FR 60129, February 18, 1992). Section 271.21( e)( 2) of EPA's state authorization regulations (40 CFR Part 271) requires that states with final authorization modify their programs to reflect federal program changes and submit the modifications to EPA for approval. The deadline by which the states must modify their programs to adopt this proposed regulation, if it is adopted as a final rule, will be determined by the date of promulgation of a final rule in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21( e)( 2). If the proposal is adopted as a final rule, Table 1 at 40 CFR 271.1 will be amended accordingly. Once we approve the modification, the state requirements become RCRA Subtitle C requirements. States with authorized RCRA programs already may have regulations similar to those in this proposed rule. These state regulations have not been assessed against the Federal regulations being proposed to determine whether they meet the tests for authorization.

VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55773 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules Thus, a state would not be authorized to implement these regulations as RCRA requirements until state program modifications are submitted to EPA and approved, pursuant to 40 CFR 271.21. Of course, States with existing regulations that are more stringent than or broader in scope than current Federal regulations may continue to administer and enforce their regulations as a matter of state law. It should be noted that authorized states are required to modify their programs only when EPA promulgates Federal standards that are more stringent or broader in scope than existing Federal standards. Section 3009 of RCRA allows states to impose standards more stringent than those in the Federal program. For those Federal program changes that are less stringent or reduce the scope of the Federal program, states are not required to modify their programs. See 40 CFR 271.1( I). This proposed rule, if finalized, is neither less stringent than nor a reduction in the scope or the current Federal program, and, therefore, states would be required to modify their programs to retain authorization to implement and enforce these regulations.

VII. Designation of Inorganic Chemical Wastes under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)

All hazardous wastes listed under RCRA and codified in 40 CFR 261.31 through 261.33, as well as any solid waste that is not excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.4( b) and that exhibits one or more of the characteristics of a RCRA hazardous waste (as defined in 40 CFR 261.21 through 261.24), are hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended (see CERCLA Section 101( 14)( C)). CERCLA hazardous substances are listed in Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4 along with their reportable quantities (RQs). If a hazardous substance is released in an amount that equals or exceeds its RQ, the release must be reported immediately to the National Response Center (NRC) pursuant to CERCLA Section 103.

A. Reporting Requirements Under CERCLA Section 103( a), the person in charge of a vessel or facility from which a hazardous substance has been released in a quantity that is equal to or exceeds its RQ must immediately notify the NRC as soon as that person has knowledge of the release. The tollfree telephone number of the NRC is 1± 800± 424± 8802; in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, the number is (202) 267± 2675. In addition to this reporting requirement under CERCLA, Section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) requires owners or operators of certain facilities to report releases of extremely hazardous substances and CERCLA hazardous substances to State and local authorities. Immediately after the release of an RQ or more of an extremely hazardous substance or a CERCLA hazardous substance, EPCRA Section 304 notification must be given to the community emergency coordinator of the local emergency planning committee for any area likely to be affected by the release, and to the State emergency response commission of any State likely to be affected by the release.

Under Section 102( b) of CERCLA, all hazardous substances (as defined by CERCLA Section 101( 14)) have a statutory RQ of one pound, unless and until the RQ is adjusted by regulation. In today's proposed rule, we propose: (1) to list the following three wastestreams as RCRA hazardous wastes; (2) to designate these wastestreams as CERCLA hazardous substances, and (3) to adjust the onepound statutory RQs for two of these wastestreams. The proposed wastestreams are as follows:

K176 Baghouse filters from the production of antimony oxide K177 Slag from the production of antimony oxide that is disposed of or speculatively accumulated K178 Nonwastewaters from the production of titanium dioxide by the chloride ilmenite process. [This listing does not apply to chloride process waste solids from titanium tetrachloride production exempt under 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 7).]

B. Basis for Proposed RQ Adjustment Our methodology for adjusting the RQs of individual hazardous substances begins with an evaluation of the intrinsic physical, chemical, and toxicological properties of each hazardous substance. The intrinsic properties examinedÐ called `` primary criteria''Ð are aquatic toxicity, mammalian toxicity (oral, dermal, and inhalation), ignitability, reactivity, chronic toxicity, and potential carcinogenicity. Generally, for each intrinsic property, we rank the hazardous substance on a five tier scale, associating a specific range of values on each scale with an RQ value of 1, 10, 100, 1,000, or 5,000 pounds. Based on the various primary criteria, the hazardous substance may receive several tentative RQ values. The lowest of the tentative RQs becomes the `` primary criteria RQ'' for that substance. After the primary criteria RQ is assigned, the substance is evaluated further for its susceptibility to certain degradative processes, which are used as secondary RQ adjustment criteria. These natural degradative processes are biodegradation, hydrolysis, and photolysis (BHP). If a hazardous substance, when released into the environment, degrades relatively rapidly to a less hazardous form by one or more of the BHP processes, its primary criteria RQ is generally raised one level. Conversely, if a hazardous substance degrades to a more hazardous product after its release, the original substance is assigned an RQ equal to the RQ for the more hazardous substance, which may be one or more levels lower than the RQ for the original substance. The standard methodology used to adjust the RQs for RCRA hazardous wastestreams differs from the methodology applied to individual hazardous substances. The procedure for assigning RQs to RCRA wastestreams is based on an analysis of the hazardous constituents of the wastestreams. The constituents of each RCRA hazardous wastestream are identified in 40 CFR part 261, Appendix VII. We determine an RQ for each constituent within the wastestream and establish the lowest RQ value of these constituents as the adjusted RQ for the wastestream. In today's proposed rule, we propose to assign a one pound adjusted RQ to the K176 wastestream and 5,000 pounds to the K177 wastestream. The proposed adjusted RQs for both of these wastestreams are based on the lowest RQ value of the constituents present in each wastestream, are presented in Table VII± 1 below. We seek comment our proposed adjustments to the RQ values for these wastes. We are not adjusting the RQ for K178 at this time because we have not yet developed a `` waste constituent RQ'' for manganese, one of the constituents of concern in this waste.

VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55774 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules TABLE VII± 1.Ð PROPOSED ADJUSTED RQS FOR WASTESTREAMS K176, K177, AND K178 Wastestream Wastestream constituent Wastestream constituent RQ (lb.) Wastestream RQ (lb.)

K176 ....................................................................................... arsenic ....................................................................... 1 1 lead ........................................................................... 10 ..................... K177 ....................................................................................... antimony .................................................................... 5,000 5,000 VIII. Administrative Assessments A. Executive Order 12866 Under Executive Order 12866, [58 FR 51,735 (October 4, 1993)] the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to 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. The Agency estimated the costs of today's proposed rule to determine if it is a significant regulation as defined by the Executive Order. The analysis considered compliance costs and economic impacts for inorganic chemical producers affected by this rule. We estimate the total cost of the rule to be $3 million annually. This analysis suggests that this rule is not economically significant according to the definition in E. O. 12866. The Office of Management and Budget has deemed this rule to be significant for novel policy reasons and has reviewed this rule. Detailed discussions of the methodology used for estimating the costs, economic impacts and the benefits attributable to today's proposed rule for listing hazardous wastes from inorganic chemical production, followed by a presentation of the cost, economic impact and benefit results, may be found in the background document: `` Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule For Listing Hazardous Waste From Inorganic Chemical Production, '' which was placed in the docket for today's proposed rule. We seek comment on the methodology used, the projected economic impacts, and the benefits assumed for the proposed listings.

1. Methodology Section To estimate the cost, economic impacts to potentially affected firms and benefits to society from this proposed rulemaking, We evaluated § 3007 Survey responses from inorganic chemical producers, firm financial reports, and chemical production data. The Agency has developed model facilities that represent composite information about inorganic chemical producers at both the facility and firm level. We also evaluated two scenarios. The first scenario evaluates the cost of listing all wastes that we propose to list in today's proposal. The second scenario includes not only wastes that EPA has proposed to list but also any waste that has exceeded risk screens (or other screening criteria) and had quantitative risk assessment completed. Analysis of these scenarios allows the public to understand what costs would have resulted from this rule making if all of the quantitative risk assessments involving fate and transport modeling had shown risk to human health. To estimate the incremental cost of this rule making, we reviewed baseline management practices and costs of potentially affected firms. Where more than one baseline management method was used (e. g. municipal incineration and landfilling), we either modeled more than one form of baseline management or selected the least expensive form of baseline management (which would overestimate rather than underestimate the cost of the rule). The Agency has modeled the most likely post regulatory scenario resulting from the listing (e. g., disposal in a Subtitle C hazardous waste landfill, recycling) and estimated the cost of complying with it. The difference between the baseline management cost and the post regulatory cost is the incremental cost of the rulemaking.

To estimate the economic impact of today's proposed rulemaking, we compared the incremental cost of the rulemaking with model firm sales and either net profit or product value. The Agency has also considered the ability of potentially affected firms to pass compliance costs on in the form of higher prices.

To estimate the benefits of today's proposal, we evaluated risk assessment results and as well as a qualitative assessment of benefits including natural resource protection of groundwater.

2. Results a. Volume Results. Data reviewed by the Agency indicates that there are 9 inorganic chemical producers potentially affected by today's proposed rule. The data report that these firms generated 700,000 tons of inorganic chemical production waste annually that are potentially affected by today's proposed rule and modeled under Scenario 1. Data also indicate that there are 26 inorganic chemical producers who have generated wastes that are either being listed because they exhibit a characteristic or have been evaluated for quantitative risk assessment involving fate and transport modeling by the Agency to evaluate their potential effect on human health and the environment. These wastes are being modeled under Scenario 2.

b. Cost Results. For today's proposed rule, we estimate the total annual incremental costs from today's proposal to be $ 2.5 million for all facilities. Sectors costs are summarized in Table 2.

VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55775 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 64 Because profit information is often either unavailable or more variable from year to year than sales measures, the Agency has chose to use a profit surrogate in completing the economic impact analysis of this proposal. According to Dun and Bradstreet's Industry Norms and Key Business Indicators (1995) the average net after tax profit for inorganic chemical producers in the 2819 SIC code was 6.3 percent. This percentage is applied to reported sales of affected firms in order to estimate their profits. 65 The Small Business Administration has classified firms in the manufacturing sector (SIC Codes 20± 39) and wholesale trade sector (SIC Codes 50± 51) as small businesses within the sector based on the number of employees per firm. See Small Business Size Standards, 61 FR 3280, 3289 (January 31, 1996). Thus, to determine if a inorganic chemical producer is a small business, the primary SIC code of the firm would have to be determined. The small entities in today's rulemaking are in two SIC codes: (1) 2812 Alkalies and Chlorine, size standard 1000 employees and (2) 5082 Construction and Mining (except Petroleum) Machinery and Equipment size standard 100 employees. TABLE VIII± 1.Ð ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL COST BY INORGANIC CHEMICAL SECTOR Sector Estimated incremental annual costs $ 000s (1999 $) Number of affected facilities Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Antimony Oxide ................................................................................................. 1.6 (recycling), 35 (disposal). 1.6 (recycling), 35 (disposal). 3 3 Hydrogen Cyanide ............................................................................................. ........................... 215 ................... 3 5 Sodium Chlorate ................................................................................................ ........................... 225 ................... 0 5 Sodium Phosphate ............................................................................................ ........................... 76 ..................... 0 4 Titanium Dioxide ................................................................................................ 2900 ................. 6500 ................. 3 9 Total ............................................................................................................ 2937 ................. 7051 ................. 9 26 c. Economic Impact Results. To estimate potential economic impacts resulting from today's proposed rule, we used first order economic impacts measures such as the estimated incremental costs of today's proposed rule as a percentage of both affected firms' sales and estimated profits 64 . We applied these measures to affected inorganic chemical producers. For affected inorganic chemical producers in the antimony oxide and sodium chlorate sectors, we estimated the costs to be less than 3 percent of a typical firm's sales and less than 2 percent of a firm's estimated profits. For affected inorganic chemical producers in the hydrogen cyanide sector, we estimated the cost to be less than 1 percent of a typical firm's sales and estimated profits. More detailed information on this estimate can be found in the economic analysis placed into today's docket. d. Benefits Assessment. EPA has not conducted a quantitative assessment of actual benefits from this proposed rule. Because today's proposed rule results in new hazardous waste management requirements for K176, K177, and K178 wastes, the Agency believes that there may be a reduction in releases of hazardous constituents to the environment.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et. seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has fewer than 1000 or 100 employees per firm depending upon the SIC code the firm primarily classified in 65 ; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not for profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are two potentially affected inorganic producing firms that constitute small entities. These firms are located in the antimony oxide sector. We have determined that these two firms would under this proposal incur costs of less than 1 percent of both the firm's sales and estimated profits under one scenario analyzed for the wastes in this sector. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.