[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

GLIN==> Phenyl Mercuric Acetate Waste



AFTER PROPOSING TO LIST PHENYL MERCURIC ACETATE WASTE
AS HAZARDOUS WASTE (AMONG SEVERAL OTHER INORGANIC CHEMICAL
WASTES), EPA TODAY DECIDES NOT TO LIST SUCH WASTES AS
HAZARDOUS (ALONG WITH ABOUT 10 OTHER INORGANIC CHEMICAL
PRODUCTION WASTE TYPES)

======

[Federal Register: November 20, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 224)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58257-58300]
 >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20no01-13]


[[Page 58257]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 148 et al.



Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste: Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes; Land Disposal
Restrictions for Newly Identified Wastes; and CERCLA Hazardous
Substance Designation and Reportable Quantities; Final Rule


[[Page 58258]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 148, 261, 268, 271, and 302

[SWH-FRL-7099-2]
RIN 2050-AE49


Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste: Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes; Land Disposal
Restrictions for Newly Identified Wastes; and CERCLA Hazardous
Substance Designation and Reportable Quantities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is listing as
hazardous three wastes generated from inorganic chemical manufacturing
processes. EPA is promulgating these regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which directs EPA to determine
whether certain wastes generated by inorganic chemical manufacturing
industries may present a substantial hazard to human health or the
environment. The effects of listing these three wastes as hazardous are
to subject them to: comprehensive management and treatment standards
under Subtitle C of RCRA; and emergency notification requirements for
releases to the environment under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This final rule
also adds the toxic constituents found in the wastes being listed as
hazardous to the list of constituents that serves as the basis for
classifying wastes as hazardous and establishing treatment standards
for the wastes. Additionally, EPA is making final determinations not to
list the remainder of wastes generated by inorganic chemical
manufacturing processes that were described in our proposed listing
determination.
     Finally, EPA is applying universal treatment standards (UTS) under
the Land Disposal Restrictions program to the inorganic chemical
manufacturing wastes listed in this rulemaking. The listed wastes must
be treated to meet these treatment standards for specific constituents
prior to land disposal.
     At this time, however, we are deferring final action on all
elements of the proposal related to manganese, including the proposal
to add manganese to Appendix VII of 40 CFR 261 as a basis for listing
K178, to add manganese to Appendix VIII of 40 CFR 261, to add manganese
to the UTS and to the BDAT standards for F039, and to set an RQ
standard in Sec. 302.4 for manganese.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on May 20, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Supporting materials to this final rule are available for
viewing in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal
Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
The Docket Identification Number is F-2001-ICMF-FFFFF. The RIC is open
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal
holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public
make an appointment by calling (703) 603-9230. The public may copy a
maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge.
Additional copies cost $0.15/page. The docket index and some supporting
materials are available electronically. See the beginning of the
Supplementary Information section for information on accessing them.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800) 424-9346 or TDD (800) 553-7672 (hearing
impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call (703) 920-
9810 or TDD (703) 412-3323. For information on specific aspects of the
rule, contact Ms. Gwen DiPietro, Office of Solid Waste (5304W), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. [E-mail address and telephone number:
<A HREF="mailto:dipietro.gwen@epa.gov";>dipietro.gwen@epa.gov</A> 
(703-308-8285).]
For technical information on the
CERCLA aspects of this rule, contact Ms. Lynn Beasley, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response (5204G), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, [E-mail
address and telephone number: <A 
HREF="mailto:beasley.lynn@epa.gov";>beasley.lynn@epa.gov</A> (703-603-9086).]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Whenever ``we'' is used throughout this
document, it refers to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
     The docket index and some supporting documents in the docket for
this proposal are available in electronic format on the Internet
at:<A 
HREF="http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/inorchem/pr2000.htm";>http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/inorchem/pr2000.htm</A>>.
     We will keep the official record for this action in paper form. The
official record is the paper record maintained at the RCRA Information
Center, also referred to as the Docket, at the address provided in the
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.

Acronyms Used in the Rule

AWQC--Ambient Water Quality Criteria
BDAT--Best Demonstrated Available Technology
BHP--Biodegradation, hydrolysis, and photolysis
CERCLA--Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CMBST--Combustion
CWA--Clean Water Act
DAF--Dilution and attenuation factor
ED--Environmental Defense
EPA/USEPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
HSWA--Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
HWIR--Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
HQ--Hazard quotient
HBL--Health-based level
ICP--Inductively Coupled Plasma
IRIS--Integrated Risk Information System
K<SUB>d</SUB>--Soil-water distribution coefficients
kg--Kilogram
LDR--Land Disposal Restrictions
mg--Milligrams
MT--Metric ton
MTR--Minimum technology requirement
ng--Nanograms
NPDES--National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NRC--National Response Center
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
OSWER--Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PDF--Probability density function ppm--Parts per million
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfD--Reference dose
RQ--Reportable Quantity
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RIC--RCRA Information Center
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
SPLP--Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure
TCDD--2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
TEQ--Toxicity equivalence
TC--Toxicity Characteristic
TCLP--Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TSDF--Treatment, storage, and disposal facility
g--Micrograms
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
UTS--Universal treatment standards
USC--United States Code
WHO--World Health Organization

Contents of this Final Rule

I. Overview

[[Page 58259]]

     A. Who Will be Affected by this Final Rule?
     B. What is the ``Readable Regulations'' Format?
     C. What are the Statutory Authorities for this Final Rule?
     D. How does the ED v. Whitman Consent Decree Impact this Final
Rule?
II. Summary of Today's Action
III. Summary of Proposed Rule
     A. What Wastes Associated with the Inorganic Chemicals
Manufacturing Industries Were Determined to be Outside the Scope of
the Consent Decree for the Proposed Rule?
     B. Which Wastes Did EPA Propose to List as Hazardous?
     1. Baghouse Filters from the Production of Antimony Oxide
     2. Antimony Slag that is Speculatively Accumulated or Disposed
     3. Non-wastewaters from the Production of Titanium Dioxide by
the Chloride-ilmenite Process
     C. Which Constituents Did EPA Propose to Add to Appendix VIII of
40 CFR part 261?
     D. What Was the Proposed Status of Landfill Leachate from
Previously Disposed Wastes?
     E. What Were the Proposed Treatment Standards Under RCRA's Land
Disposal Restrictions Standards?
     F. What Risk Assessment Approach Was Used for the Proposed Rule?
     IV. What is the Rationale for Today's Final Rule?
     A. Final ``No List'' Determinations
     B. Deferral of Final Action on Manganese-related Elements of
Proposed Rule
     C. Final Antimony Oxide Listing Determinations
     1. K176 Baghouse Filters
     2. K177 Slag
     3. Scope Issues--production of intermediates
     4. Scope--offsite recycling
     D. Final Titanium Dioxide Listing Determination
     1. Overview of Listing Determination
     2. Overview of K178 Comments
     3. Overview of K178 Waste Subcategories
     4. Management Scenarios
     5. Scope Issues--Exempt Mineral Processing Wastes
     6. Comments Related to the Constituents of Concern and Modeling
Issues
     7. Wastewater Treatment Sludge
     8. Ferric Chloride Residues
     9. Conclusions
     10. RCRA versus HSWA Listing
     E. What is the Status of Landfill Leachate Derived From Newly-
listed K176, K177, and K178 Wastes?
     F. What are the Final Treatment Standards Under RCRA's Land
Disposal Restrictions for the Newly-Listed Hazardous Wastes?
     1. What are EPA's Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)?
     2. What are the Treatment Standards for K176?
     3. What are the Treatment Standards for K177?
     4. What are the Treatment Standards for K178?
     G. Is There Treatment Capacity for the Newly Listed Wastes?
     1. Introduction
     2. What are the Capacity Analysis Results for K176, K177, and
K178?
     3. What is the Capacity Analysis Result due to the Proposed
Revision of the F039 Standard?
V. When Must Regulated Entities Comply With the Provisions in
Today's Final Rule?
     A. Effective Date
     B. Section 3010 Notification
     C. Generators and Transporters
     D. Facilities Subject to Permitting
     1. K176 and K177: Facilities Newly Subject to RCRA Permit
Requirements
     2. K178: Facilities Newly Subject to RCRA Permit Requirements
     3. K176 and K177: Existing Interim Status Facilities
     4. K178: Existing Interim Status Facilities
     5. K176 and K177: Permitted Facilities
     6. K178: Permitted Facilities
     7. K176, K177 and K178: Units
     8. K176 and K177: Closure
     9. K178: Closure
VI. How Will This Rule be Implemented at the State Level?
     A. Applicability of Rule in Authorized States
     B. Authorization of States for Today's Final Rule
VII. What are the Reportable Quantity Requirements for the Newly-
Listed Wastes under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act?
     A. When do I have to Report my Releases?
     B. What was the Basis for the RQ Adjustment?
     C. What if I know the Concentration of the Constituents in my
Waste?
VIII.Administrative Assessments
     A. Executive Order 12866
     1. Methodology Section
     2. Results
     B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)
     C. Paperwork Reduction Act
     D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
     E. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
     F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
     G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
     H. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
     I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
     J. Congressional Review Act
     K. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

I. Overview

A. Who Will Be Affected by This Final Rule?

     Today's final action will affect those who handle the wastes that
we are adding to EPA's list of hazardous wastes under the RCRA program.
This action also will affect entities that need to respond to releases
of these wastes as CERCLA hazardous substances. These potentially-
affected entities are described in detail in the Economics Background
Document placed in the docket in support of today's final rule. A
summary is shown in Table I--1 below:

  Table I--1: Summary of Facilities Potentially Affected by the US EPA's
      2000 Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Waste Listing Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Number of
                                                                  U.S.
                                                                Relevant
          SIC Code/NAIC Code           Industry Sector Name    Inorganic
                                                                  Mfg.
                                                               Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2816/325131........................  Inorganic Pigments/               1
                                       Ingoranic Dye and
                                       Pigment Manufacturing.
2819/325188........................  Industrial Inorganic          \1\ 3
                                       Chemicals, not
                                       elsewhere classified/
                                       Other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Other SIC/NAICS codes may be used by impacted facilities (e.g., 3339/
   3331419).

     The list of potentially affected entities in the above table may
not be exhaustive. Our aim is to provide a guide for readers regarding
entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists those
entities that we are aware of that potentially could be affected by
this action. However, this action may affect other entities not listed
in the table. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this
action, you should examine 40 CFR parts 260 and 261 carefully in
concert with the final rules amending these regulations that are found
at the end of this Federal Register document. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding section entitled FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Is the ``Readable Regulations'' Format?

     Today's preamble and regulations are written in ``readable
regulations'' format. The authors tried to use active rather than
passive voice, plain language, a question-and-answer format, the
pronouns ``we'' for EPA and ``you'' for the owner/generator, and other
techniques to make the information in today's rule easier to read and
understand. This format is part of our efforts toward regulatory
improvement. We believe this format helps readers understand the
regulations, which should then increase compliance, make enforcement
easier, and foster better

[[Page 58260]]

relationships between EPA and the regulated community.

C. What Are the Statutory Authorities for This Final Rule?

     Today's hazardous waste regulations are promulgated under the
authority of sections 2002(a), 3001(b), 3001(e)(2), 3004(d)-(m) and
3007(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6921(b) and
(e)(2), 6924(d)-(m) and 6927(a), as amended several times, most
importantly by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
These statutes commonly are referred to as the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), and are codified at Volume 42 of the United
States Code (U.S.C.), sections 6901 to 6992(k) (42 U.S.C. 6901-
6992(k)).
     Section 102(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9602(a) is
the authority under which the CERCLA aspects of this rule are
promulgated.

D. How Does the ED v. Whitman Consent Decree Impact This Final Rule?

     The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA
require EPA to make listing determinations for several specified
categories of wastes, including ``inorganic chemical industry wastes''
(see RCRA section 3001(e)(2)). In 1989, Environmental Defense (ED)
filed a lawsuit to enforce the statutory deadlines for listing
decisions in RCRA section 3001(e)(2) (ED v. Whitman; D.D.C. Civ. No.
89-0598). To resolve the listing issues in the case, ED and EPA entered
into a consent decree, which has been amended several times to revise
deadlines for EPA action. Paragraph 1.g (as amended) of the Consent
Decree addresses the inorganic chemical industry:

     EPA shall promulgate a final listing determination for inorganic
chemical industry wastes on or before October 31, 2001. This listing
determination shall be proposed for public comment on or before
August 30, 2000. The listing determination shall include the
following wastes: sodium dichromate production wastes, wastes from
the dry process for manufacturing phosphoric acid, phosphorus
trichloride production wastes, phosphorus pentasulfide production
wastes, wastes from the production of sodium phosphate from wet
process phosphoric acid, sodium chlorate production wastes, antimony
oxide production wastes, cadmium pigments production wastes, barium
carbonate production wastes, potassium dichromate production wastes,
phenyl mercuric acetate production wastes, boric acid production
wastes, inorganic hydrogen cyanide production wastes, and titanium
dioxide production wastes (except for chloride process waste
solids). However, such listing determinations need not include any
wastes which are excluded from hazardous waste regulation under
section 3001(b)(3)(A)(ii) of RCRA and for which EPA has determined
that such regulation is unwarranted pursuant to section
3001(b)(3)(C) of RCRA.

Today's final rule satisfies EPA's duty under paragraph 1.g to
promulgate listing determinations for inorganic chemical industry
wastes. Moreover, compliance with the Consent Decree fulfills EPA's
duty to make listing determinations for the inorganic chemical industry
under section 3001(e)(2) of RCRA.

II. Summary of Today's Action

     In today's notice, EPA is promulgating regulations that add three
wastes generated by or closely related to the inorganic chemicals
industries to the list of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.32. Below are
the wastestreams EPA is listing as hazardous with their corresponding
EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers.

K176  Baghouse filters from the production of antimony oxide, including
filters from the production of intermediates (e.g., antimony metal or
crude antimony oxide). (E) 1-2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     \1-2\ As per 40 CFR 261.3(b), the code (E) indicates that this
waste is being listed because it exhibits the toxicity
characteristic; the code (T), designated for K176 and K177,
indicates that these wastes are being listed because they are toxic
wastes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K177  Slag from the production of antimony oxide that is speculatively
accumulated or disposed, including slag from the production of
intermediates (e.g., antimony metal or crude antimony oxide). (T)
K178  Solids from manufacturing and manufacturing-site storage of
ferric chloride from acids formed during the production of titanium
dioxide using the chloride-ilmenite process. (T)

     EPA is listing these wastes as hazardous based on the criteria set
out in 40 CFR 261.11. As described in the September 14, 2000 proposed
rule (65 FR 55684), we assessed and considered these criteria for each
of the residuals generated by the inorganic chemicals industries to
determine which wastes warranted listing. This process involved
reviewing more than 170 categories of residuals generated in the 14
inorganic chemical manufacturing sectors. Because of the large number
of residuals, we first determined whether any of these residuals fell
outside the scope of our Consent Decree obligations. We then evaluated
the risks posed by each of the remaining residuals. In some cases we
used quantitative or qualitative screening methods. For 18 wastes we
conducted full-scale modeling to predict risks.
     After assessing public comments submitted in response to our
proposal, we are finalizing hazardous waste listings for the three
wastes noted above. Two of the wastes were evaluated using full-scale
risk assessment modeling and the resultant hazardous waste listings for
these wastes are finalized based on 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3). The remaining
waste (K176) warrants listing based on 40 CFR 261.11(a)(1) because it
exhibits hazardous waste characteristics.
     Upon the effective date of today's final rule, wastes meeting the
listing descriptions will become hazardous wastes and must be managed
in accordance with RCRA subtitle C requirements. (Based on our data,
residuals newly listed as K176 exhibited one or more of the hazardous
waste characteristics prior to the effective date of today's rule, and,
as such, currently are subject to hazardous waste control.) Also,
please note that the listing for K178 becomes has a different effective
date; it does not become effective until authorized states revise their
programs to add the listing. With certain limited exceptions, residuals
from the treatment, storage, or disposal of these newly listed
hazardous wastes also will be classified as hazardous wastes pursuant
to the ``derived-from'' rule (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)). Also, with
certain limited exceptions, any mixture of a listed hazardous waste and
a solid waste is itself a RCRA hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii)
and (iv), ``the mixture rule'').
     Today's rule also takes final action on decisions not to list as
hazardous, as discussed in the proposal, the wastes from the following
sectors:
--wastes from the production of antimony oxide (with the exception of
baghouse filters--K176, and slag--K177)

--wastes from the production of barium carbonate
--wastes from the production of boric acid
--wastes from the production of cadmium pigments
--wastes from the production of hydrogen cyanide
--wastes from the production of phenyl mercuric acetate
--wastes from the production of phosphoric acid
--wastes from the production of phosphorous trichloride
--wastes from the production of phosphorous pentasulfide
--wastes from the production of potassium dichromate

[[Page 58261]]

     --wastes from the production of sodium chlorate
     --wastes from the production of sodium dichromate
     --wastes from the production of sodium phosphate
     --wastes from the production of titanium dioxide (with the
exception of a related waste from subsequent manufacture of ferric
chloride acid--K178)

Descriptions of the specific wastestreams can be found in the listing
background documents for each sector, available in the docket for the
rulemaking. Responses to relevant comments regarding these listings can
be found in the Response to Comments Background Document, also
available in the docket.
     We also are promulgating other changes to the RCRA regulations as a
result of the final listing determinations. These changes include
adding constituents to Appendix VII of part 261, and setting land
disposal restrictions for the newly listed wastes. We are adding the
following constituents to Appendix VII of 40 CFR 261 due to the fact
that these constituents serve as the basis for new listings and can
pose hazards to human health and the environment: arsenic and lead
(K176), antimony (K177), and thallium (K178). Section IV.E of today's
rule describes the changes to the land disposal restrictions
establishing treatment standards for the specific constituents in the
newly-listed hazardous wastes.
     As explained below in section IV.B., we are deferring final action
on all elements of our proposal that are specifically related to the
waste constituent manganese. We received numerous comments related to
the risk associated with manganese and the economic impact to many
industries, including the steel industry, of adding manganese to the
Universal Treatment Standards requirements and to 40 CFR 261, Appendix
VIII. Although we continue to believe that manganese poses significant
issues that ultimately should be resolved, the court-ordered schedule
under which we are operating provides us with no flexibility to take
additional time to explore these topics more fully. As a result, we
have chosen to defer final action on adding manganese to Appendix VII
of 40 CFR 261 as a basis for listing K178; on adding manganese to
Appendix VIII of 40 CFR 261; on adding manganese to the treatment
standards for K178, to the UTS and to the BDAT standards for F039; and
on setting an RQ standard in Sec. 302.4 for K178 that addresses
manganese.
     Also as a result of this final rule, these listed wastes become
hazardous substances under CERCLA. Therefore, in today's rule we are
designating these wastes as CERCLA hazardous substances, and adjusting
the one-pound statutory default RQs for two of these wastestreams (K176
and K177). The CERCLA RQ adjustments for the K176 and K177 wastes were
proposed in the September 14, 2000 proposed rule (65 FR 55684, 55773-
55774). We did not propose an adjusted RQ for K178 at that time because
we had not yet developed a ``waste constituent RQ'' for manganese, one
of the constituents of concern in the K178 waste. Thus we are
finalizing the statutory default RQ for K178 and are not finalizing an
RQ adjustment for K178 in today's rule. These changes are described in
section VII of today's final rule.

III. Summary of Proposed Rule

     In the September 14, 2000 proposed rule (65 FR 55684), EPA proposed
to list three wastes generated by the inorganic chemicals manufacturing
industries as hazardous wastes under RCRA. The wastes that we proposed
to list as hazardous were:

      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--Non-exempt, 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 section 261.4(b)(7)).
A summary of these proposed listing determinations is presented below.
More detailed discussions are provided in the preamble to the proposed
rule and in the Background Documents included in the docket for the
proposed rule.
     In connection with the proposed K178 listing, EPA proposed to amend
Appendix VIII of 40 CFR 261 to add manganese to the list of hazardous
constituents.
     We proposed to establish treatment standards for each of the three
candidate listings. We also proposed to add manganese to the Universal
Treatment Standards (UTS) Table in 268.48 and to the F039 treatment
standards applicable to hazardous waste landfill leachate. The effect
of adding manganese to the UTS Table would be to require all
characteristic hazardous wastes that contain manganese as an underlying
hazardous constituent above the UTS level to be treated for manganese
prior to land disposal.
     We proposed to add the three candidate hazardous wastes to the list
of CERCLA hazardous substances. We also proposed adjusted Reportable
Quantities (RQs) for two of the wastes (K176 and K177).

A. What Wastes Associated With the Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing
Industries Were Determined To Be Outside the Scope of the Consent
Decree for the Proposed Rule?

     As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the Consent
Decree does not tell EPA which specific inorganic chemical
manufacturing wastes it must evaluate, although it does identify
sectors to be assessed. Paragraph 1.g of the Consent Decree contains
one exemption (from the Agency's listing determination obligation) for
wastes found to be exempt from hazardous waste regulation in previous
EPA actions implementing the so-called ``Bevill exemptions'' for
mineral processing wastes.
     After identifying all of the residuals associated with inorganic
chemical manufacturing through data collection and facility
investigations, we reviewed the list of residuals and determined the
scope of our efforts. We found that some residuals are exempt
``Bevill'' wastes and we, therefore, did not need to address them.\3\
We found that other wastes are associated with the manufacture of other
materials and not associated with the inorganic chemical manufacturing
processes identified in the Consent Decree. With few exceptions, we
chose not to evaluate any wastes that are outside the scope of the
Consent Decree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     \3\ Bevill exempt wastes include wastes generated by mining
operations that are produced during extraction and beneficiation
operations and an additional 20 categories of wastes generated
during mineral processing operations that EPA has determined meet
``high volume/low toxicity'' criteria. The ``Bevill'' exemptions are
codified at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Wastes generated by each of the inorganic chemical manufacturing
industries that we determined to be outside the scope of the Consent
Decree and, therefore, did not evaluate for the proposed rule are
identified and described in the discussions of sector-specific listing
determination rationales presented in section III.F of the proposed
rule (65 FR 55701, September 14, 2000). Except as discussed below in
this preamble, we received no comments that persuaded us to change our
positions on any of our proposed findings on the scope of the Consent
Decree.

[[Page 58262]]

B. Which Wastes Did EPA Propose To List as Hazardous?

1. Baghouse Filters From the Production of Antimony Oxide
     We proposed to list as hazardous baghouse filters from the
production of antimony oxide. We proposed to list this waste because it
exhibits one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste, and the
waste is not consistently managed as a hazardous waste in compliance
with RCRA Subtitle C regulations. The hazardous waste listing criterion
at 40 CFR 261.11(a)(1) provides that EPA may list a waste as hazardous
based upon the fact that it exhibits any of the hazardous waste
characteristics. Sampling and analysis undertaken by EPA for this rule
show that baghouse filters from the production of antimony oxide
exhibit the toxicity characteristic for lead and/or arsenic.
Information gathered from RCRA Sec. 3007 questionnaire responses
indicated that of the four antimony oxide production facilities
generating baghouse filters, none designate their baghouse filters as
hazardous waste. Two of the facilities send their baghouse filters to
nonhazardous waste disposal facilities. The other two recycle the
baghouse filters.
     EPA proposed to list baghouse filters from the production of
antimony oxide solely based upon the fact that the waste exhibits the
toxicity characteristic and generators are not complying with hazardous
waste regulations. The Agency did not conduct risk assessment modeling
to estimate potential risks to human health from plausible waste
management practices. We did not need to model risks posed by lead and
arsenic because leachate levels for these constituents exceeded the
toxicity characteristic levels. Moreover, in analyzing samples of the
waste collected by EPA, we determined that antimony levels in the waste
are high (total concentrations can equate to 12% of the waste).
Leachate levels for antimony in baghouse filters are up to 48,000 times
the drinking water HBL. In the preamble to the proposed rule, we
indicated that such high levels of antimony would provide a long-term
source of the metal for leaching into ground water and would likely
result in risk if modeled.
2. Antimony Slag That Is Speculatively Accumulated or Disposed
     We proposed to list as hazardous waste slag from the production of
antimony oxide that is disposed of or speculatively accumulated. We
based our decision to list this waste as hazardous on the results of
modeling of an on-site industrial landfill disposal scenario and a
ground-water exposure pathway. Our modeling showed significant risk for
antimony with a hazard quotient \4\ of 9.4 for life-time non-cancer
risk for an exposed child. The antimony hazard quotient for adult non-
cancer risk is 4.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     \4\ Hazard quotient is defined as the ratio of the estimated
dose of a given chemical to an individual to the reference dose for
that chemical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, our modeling
approach for the risk assessment assumed that the antimony slag is
placed in an unlined, industrial landfill. At the time of proposal, we
knew of one antimony oxide production facility that was speculatively
accumulating the slag, storing the waste in drums over several years.
The facility operating permit issued by the state mining program
required construction of a lined on-site land-based unit for storing
the waste in the future. We did not take into account the liner
described in the mining permit because our most recent information at
that time indicated that construction had not yet been initiated and we
believed that it was feasible that the facility could instead choose to
landfill the waste offsite. We also noted more general concerns
regarding the uncertain efficacy of engineered liners over the modeled
risk assessment period, which covers 10,000 years. (See 65 FR 55703 for
additional details.)
     In addition to the risk assessment results, our proposed listing
determination was based on the high total concentrations of antimony in
this waste. Our sampling and analysis results showed that the antimony
levels in the slag exceed ten percent (up to 127,000 mg/kg) of one
waste, by weight. The SPLP antimony concentration exceeds the drinking
water HBL by a factor greater than 35,000. We also considered the fact
that antimony is persistent in the environment and will not degrade.
3. Non-wastewaters From The Production of Titanium Dioxide by the
Chloride-Ilmenite Process
     We proposed to list as hazardous waste certain solid wastes
generated from the production of titanium dioxide using the chloride-
ilmenite process. The proposed listing covered wastes generated at
three facilities and included three components in the commingled solids
stream: (1) Coke and ore solids removed from the gaseous titanium
tetrachloride process stream commingled with a non-exempt vanadium
waste; (2) solids removed from ferric chloride acid, if removed from
the acid stream after the initiation of chemical manufacturing and/or
ancillary operations; and (3) wastewater treatment sludges, to the
extent they are generated from oxidation and finishing wastewaters.
     Our risk assessment showed potential significant risks to human
health and the environment from two constituents in these wastes,
manganese and thallium, when managed in an industrial solid waste
landfill. In the case of manganese, the high-end hazard quotient for
risks to a child was 3.3. The high-end hazard quotient for risk to a
child from thallium was 2.4. Our qualitative assessment of risks
associated with a municipal solid waste landfill indicated these risks
might be higher by an order of magnitude. Similarly, we qualitatively
expressed concerns regarding measured levels of chlorinated dioxins and
furans in these wastes.
     We proposed to limit the scope of the listing to the non-exempt
portions of these wastes (i.e., the portions of the wastes not covered
by the Bevill exemption). We did not extend the scope of the listing to
include exempt mineral processing wastes associated with the chloride-
ilmenite process (``chloride process waste solids from titanium
tetrachloride production,'' see 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7)(S))\5\. As explained
in the preamble to the proposed rule, all exempt mineral processing
wastes generated by inorganic chemical manufacturing facilities are
outside the scope of the Consent Decree and were not evaluated as part
of the Agency's listing determination for wastes generated by this
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     \5\ See 65 FR 55750 for a more detailed explanation of which
wastes generated during the production of titanium dioxide are
exempt mineral processing wastes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Which Constituents Did EPA Propose To Add to Appendix VIII of 40 CFR
part 261?

     EPA proposed to add one constituent, manganese, to the list of
hazardous constituents at 40 CFR part 261, Appendix VIII. We proposed
to find that manganese was a constituent of concern in the titanium
dioxide waste that EPA proposed to list as hazardous. Based on our
assessment of the available toxicity data, we believed that manganese
met the Sec. 261.11(a) criteria for inclusion on Appendix VIII.
Therefore, we proposed to add manganese to Appendix VIII of 40 CFR 261.

D. What Was the Proposed Status of Landfill Leachate From Previously
Disposed Wastes?

     We proposed to amend the existing exemption from the definition of

[[Page 58263]]

hazardous waste for landfill leachate generated from certain previously
disposed hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.4(b)(15)) to include leachate
collected from non-hazardous waste landfills that previously accepted
the three proposed listed wastes (K176, K177, K178). We proposed to
temporarily defer the application of the proposed new waste codes to
such leachate to avoid disruption of ongoing leachate management
activities.
     The Agency proposed the deferral because information available to
EPA at the time indicated that each of the wastes proposed to be listed
as hazardous may have been managed previously in non-hazardous waste
landfills. Leachate derived from the treatment, storage, or disposal of
listed hazardous wastes is classified as hazardous waste by the
derived-from rule in 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2). Without such a deferral, we
were concerned about forcing pretreatment of leachate even though
pretreatment is neither required by nor needed under the CWA.

E. What Were the Proposed Treatment Standards Under RCRA's Land
Disposal Restrictions Standards?

     We proposed to apply existing universal treatment standards (UTS)
for the hazardous constituents of concern that were found to be present
at concentrations exceeding the UTS in the proposed listed wastes. We
proposed to apply the UTS to these wastes because the waste
compositions were found to be similar to other wastes for which
applicable treatment technologies have been demonstrated.
     For K176 (baghouse filters from production of antimony oxide), we
proposed treatment standards requiring treatment to the UTS levels for
antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. For K177 (slag from the
production of antimony oxide that is disposed of or speculatively
accumulated), we proposed to apply the UTS as treatment standards for
antimony, arsenic and lead. In the case of both K176 and K177, we
requested data and comment on the stabilization of antimony, given that
available data indicated stabilization was effective treatment for
wastes with initial antimony concentrations below those found in K176
and K177.
     For K178 (nonwastewaters from the production of titanium dioxide by
the chloride-ilmenite process), we proposed to apply the UTS as
treatment standards for thallium and the chlorinated congeners of
dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofuran. In addition, we proposed the option
of complying with the technology standard of combustion (CMBST) for the
chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofuran constituents in K178.
Since K178 has metal constituents of concern which would not be treated
by the combustion process and would remain in the combustion treatment
residual, we proposed to retain metal treatment standards for all
circumstances (regardless of whether or not the waste is treated by
combustion). This approach would require facilities to conduct
compliance testing and analysis for all regulated metal constituents in
the combustion treatment residuals prior to disposal.
     Universal treatment standards were not previously developed for
manganese. We proposed a manganese treatment standard of 3.6 mg/L TCLP,
based on high temperature metals recovery technology. We also requested
comment on an option of setting a treatment standard for manganese in
nonwastewater forms of K178 that is identical to the UTS level for
thallium (0.20 mg/L TCLP, based on stabilization). In the case of
wastewater forms of K178, we proposed a treatment standard of 17.1 mg/L
manganese, based upon sedimentation technology.
     We proposed to add the proposed manganese treatment standard to the
existing treatment standards for multi-source leachate (F039). In
addition, we proposed to add manganese to the UTS Table at 40 CFR
268.48. These changes would require that all characteristic hazardous
wastes that contain manganese as an underlying hazardous constituent
above the UTS are treated for manganese before land disposal.
     In the case of hazardous debris contaminated with proposed K176,
K177, and K178, we proposed that the provisions in 40 CFR 268.45 apply
to treatment and disposal of hazardous debris. Hazardous debris treated
in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 268.45 may be land disposed
in a hazardous waste disposal facility. As a result, debris
contaminated with proposed K176, K177, and K178 have to be treated
prior to land disposal, using specific debris treatment technologies
such as extraction, destruction, or immobilization. Residuals generated
from the treatment of contaminated debris would have to meet the
applicable UTS limits for proposed K176, K177, and K178.
     In addition, we proposed to apply the regulations at 40 CFR 268.49
to hazardous soil contaminated with proposed K176, K177, and 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 proposed standards in 40 CFR 268.40.

F. What Risk Assessment Approach Was Used for the Proposed Rule?

     We conducted human health risk analyses to support our proposed
listing determination decisions for those inorganic chemical wastes
where initial screening analyses indicated that further assessment of
potential human health risks was necessary. We used a variety of
screening methodologies to assess a large number of wastes. This
approach was necessary because of the time constraints imposed by the
Consent Decree schedule and the large number of wastes that needed to
be assessed. However, we believe that the screening methodologies
assessed risks very conservatively and that wastes that were ``screened
out'' are not likely to present significant risks.
     We estimated risks using both ``deterministic'' and
``probabilistic'' human health risk analyses. A deterministic analysis
produces a point estimate of risk or hazard by assigning a single value
to each parameter used in the analysis. A probabilistic analysis
generates a distribution of risk or hazard by allowing one or more of
the parameters to take on more than one value, as determined by a
probability distribution. We used probabilistic analysis to allow us to
quantify individual risk at selected percentiles of the risk
distribution (for example, 50th percentile, 90th percentile, 95th
percentile). We based our listing decisions on the probabilistic risk
estimates. The human health risks represent incremental risks to an
individual and are expressed as estimates of excess lifetime cancer
risk for carcinogenic (cancer-causing) contaminants and hazard
quotients (HQs) for those contaminants that produce other, non-cancer,
health effects.
     The human health risk assessments that we conducted to support the
inorganic chemicals listing determination included five primary tasks:
(1) Conducting screening analyses and establishing whether there are
constituents of concern in the wastes that warrant further analysis to
determine their risk to human health; (2) establishing a scenario under
which constituents of concern are released from a waste management unit
and subsequently are transported in the environment to a human
receptor; (3) estimating the concentrations of constituents to which
the receptor might be exposed; (4) quantifying the receptor's exposure
to constituents; and

[[Page 58264]]

(5) based on the constituent's toxicities, assessing the risks to the
receptor. The establishment of exposure scenario assumptions depended
on the way a particular waste is managed. For wastes managed on-site
(e.g., disposed of in an on-site industrial landfill), we based our
assessment of human exposures on the plausibility of ground water being
used for drinking water within the vicinity of the facility. Where
possible, we identified site-specific hydrogeological information and
we determined actual distances from the facility, or waste management
unit, to the nearest ground-water drinking water well. If we determined
that no drinking water wells could plausibly be impacted by releases
from the facility (e.g., we found that ground water was not a viable
current or future drinking water resource), we assumed no human
exposure via the ground-water pathway. In the case of wastes that could
plausibly be managed off-site, we assumed that ground water is used for
drinking water (or could be in the future) and we used national data on
the distribution of distances from land disposal units to residential
wells to assess human exposures and risk.
     The preamble to the proposed rule provided a detailed discussion of
EPA's risk assessment for the inorganic chemicals listing determination
(see 65 FR 55684). A full description of all risk analyses conducted in
support of our listing determinations finalized in today's rule can be
found in the risk assessment background documents available in the
rulemaking docket. (See ``Risk Assessment for the Listing
Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes,'' August
2000.)

IV. What Is the Rationale for Today's Final Rule?

A. Final ``No List'' Determinations

     The Agency proposed not to list as hazardous any of the wastes from
twelve of the inorganic chemical manufacturing sectors we evaluated for
the proposed rule. These sectors are: Barium carbonate, boric acid,
cadmium pigments, hydrogen cyanide, phenyl mercuric acetate,
phosphorous acid from the dry process, phosphorous pentasulfide,
phosphorous trichloride, potassium dichromate, sodium chlorate, sodium
dichromate and sodium phosphate from wet phosphoric acid production. We
received no adverse comment on the proposed decisions for these wastes
and did not independently learn of any information requiring us to
change our position on any of these waste categories. Therefore, we are
making final decisions not to list any wastes from these inorganic
chemical manufacturing sectors. A few commenters asked us to clarify
issues relating to these determinations that might have impacts outside
the scope of this rulemaking. Responses to these comments appear in the
Response to Comments document.
     The Agency mistakenly referred to a selenium ``standard'' (0.0050
mg/L) in the barium carbonate section of the preamble for the proposed
rule (65 FR 55701, September 14, 2000). This selenium level is more
appropriately referred to as EPA's recommended Ambient Water Quality
Criteria (AWQC) for protection of freshwater organisms from chronic
effects (63 FR 68353 as corrected at 64 FR 19781). EPA issues the
criteria for selenium and other constituents under the authority of the
section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1314(a)(1).
These recommended criteria provide guidance for States and Tribes in
adopting water quality standards under section 303(d) of the CWA (EPA-
822-F-98-006, Compilation of National Recommended Water Quality
Criteria and EPA's Process for Deriving New and Revised Criteria,
December 1998).
     We also explained in the proposal that we had evaluated risks posed
by a number of residual materials that appear to be recycled; we did
not first determine whether these materials were ``solid wastes'' under
the statute and implementing regulations. We received both supportive
and critical comments on our approach to evaluating secondary materials
that may be reused or recycled. As discussed in the proposed rule,
these determinations are complex, time consuming and best made on a
site-specific basis. We continue to believe that the approach used in
the proposal is appropriate and, thus, have not made site-specific
determinations on whether secondary materials are or are not solid
wastes if we could more quickly determine that they did not pose a risk
significant enough to warrant listing them as hazardous. The decision
not to move forward with further evaluation of a specific secondary
material because the risk is not within the range determined to be
significant does not imply that the material is or is not a solid
waste. Rather, this approach represents an efficient way for EPA to
make listing determinations and ensure we meet the requirements of the
Consent Decree.
     We received comments regarding recent case law regarding the
definition of solid waste, which limits our jurisdiction under Subtitle
C of RCRA. However, as discussed above and in the proposal, we did not
make site-specific or waste-specific decisions on whether or not
secondary materials were solid wastes, since we believed that we could
more quickly determine whether they pose a listable risk. As a result
of our risk-based evaluation, we decided not to list most of the wastes
that we evaluated. It was not necessary for these decisions to
interpret these cases, which include Association of Battery Recyclers
v. EPA, (208 F. 3d 1047 (D.C. Cir 2000)).
     We are promulgating listings for three wastes. None of these
decisions required us to address the limits of our statutory
jurisdiction. In all cases we have information showing that some
facilities dispose of the materials covered by the listings. Moreover,
our listings do not apply to secondary materials that we currently
consider to be outside of our Subtitle C jurisdiction (e.g., materials
used as an effective substitute for commercial products, commercial
chemical products being reclaimed, etc.). In one case (slag associated
with antimony oxide production, listed as K177), we expressly
conditioned the listing to make it clear that slags recycled by
reclamation, an activity that we have traditionally considered to fall
within our jurisdiction, will not be regulated by the listing, unless
the entities involved engage in speculative accumulation. This,
however, was a risk-based decision, and did not require us to re-
examine the limits of our jurisdiction over solid wastes.
     Finally, as mentioned above, we took the position in the proposal
that various wastes were exempt from regulation--and outside of the
scope of the Consent Decree--under the Bevill amendment regulations. We
chose not to evaluate risks from these wastes. With the exception of
comments relating to titanium dioxide wastes discussed below, we
received no comments persuading us to change our position on the
applicability of the Bevill exemption to any of the wastes discussed in
the proposal.

B. Deferral of Final Action on Manganese-Related Elements of Proposed
Rule

     We are deferring final action on all elements of our proposal that
are specifically related to the waste constituent manganese. We
received numerous comments related to the risk associated with
manganese and the economic

SNIP


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex J. Sagady & Associates  http://my.voyager.net/~ajs/sagady.pdf

Environmental Enforcement, Technical Review, Public Policy and
Communications on Air, Water and Waste/Community Environmental Protection

PO Box 39,  East Lansing, MI  48826-0039
(517) 332-6971; (517) 332-8987 (fax); ajs@sagady.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
glin-announce is hosted by the Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN):
http://www.great-lakes.net
To subscribe: http://www.glin.net/forms/glin-announce_form.html
To post a message: http://www.glin.net/forms/glin-announce_post.html
To search the archive: http://www.glin.net/lists/glin-announce/
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *